Introduction: Down with Capitalism
Not our American economy, the word.
Today we will rename capitalism to demonstrate how important truth, concepts, logic, reason, narrative, and definition are to worldview – whether one believes in truth or not. (Everyone does in that everyone acts on truth – or we die rather quickly.) We must learn to think like Marxists and postmodernists to engage effectively with them. So, let’s start now.
In addition, the Renaming Capitalism series will offer a general illustration of how two totally comprehensive worldviews are constructed, along with a comparison of two largely conflicting worldviews – Marxism and Christianity.
PC Contributor Rodney Stark has written extensively about the subject, and he summarizes the Marxist attitude toward capitalism in the short clip at top. While Marxists believe capitalism is good in that it’s very good at producing wealth and is a necessary stage to advance to communist utopia, too many Marxists also believe that “capitalists” should be eliminated. History demonstrates this in spades, beginning almost immediately after Marxism’s first articulation (culminating in 1848’s Communist Manifesto) and then consistently over the last two centuries. Marxism becomes murderous with ease.
In a recent post we recommended that all good Christians and Americans drop the word capitalism from everyday vocabulary, and, in another post, we recommended another word to take its place – creastruction. We don’t care which words or phrases one chooses in conversation, but, if you are going to eat peas with a knife, you should at least realize you’re doing it.
More specifically: This post is intended to present a thought-experiment to demonstrate the power of communication. Why do they say, “The pen is mightier than the sword?” Because in the long run and sometimes in the short run, it is. In sum, we hope to shed some light on this important subject, not create straight-jackets in language or conversation.
Derivation of the Word Capitalism
Basically, “ism” means a distinctive cause, doctrine, theory, or system. As a suffix it usually signifies an ideology. So, capitalism would mean a doctrine or system about capital.
The word capital has a Latin derivation (caput) meaning head. Job became wealthy with many heads of sheep; David became famous by moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem; and Henry the VIII became infamous offering various wives capital punishment. (Ouch!) Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. did the same.
But the sense of capitalism we have today likely came from the Roman idea of wealth as counted in heads of cattle. (Definitely check the last link to see Michael Novak’s discussion of the word capitalism.) In early modern times capital entered today’s lexicon through France or Italy as the money or possessions one owns to create and run a business enterprise. In the early 1800’s in France, the word capitalist came to mean one who invests money to become a business owner. Investing became a business in itself for wealthy entrepreneurs like private equity today.
In his famous book Das Capital (1867), Karl Marx garnered the term capitalist to describe wealthy bourgeoisie, and from his historical schema his Marxist disciples developed the word capitalism to describe modern time, society, economics, and men in Marxist worldview.
(Our only criticism of the video linked at his name in the prior sentence is that it portrays Marx as a good man in today’s terms on a personal, family basis. He was not, and he benefited immensely from the freedoms he received from the Christian societies he sought to destroy. Europeans chased him off the continent, and he lived much of his adult life in London. Notice lack of gratitude and the difference between word and deed. At Praxis Circle, we think it critical to examine philosophers’ lives closely. To judge them – and we must – we should compare how they lived to their philosophy and what impact it had on others.)
This is probably a good place to state a major theme of this post: Obviously, we believe it insane for the West to hold up the word capital as the goal or idol of the West built on Christianity by using the word capitalism in describing our economic system, when Marxists believe the word signifies our epoch of time and our institutional system in toto. This is rather nonsensical and misleading.
Now, to continue: The following video is unsympathetic toward Marxism but true, and it provides a good overview of the subject. True attempts at socialism and communism never end well; i.e., they fail. China will prove no different in the long run. It is only a matter of time.
We will not offer a definition of capitalism in this post; there are many good definitions short and long available in our PC library. (Who doesn’t love Walter Williams? Only people on the Far Left. He offers his quick definition here.)
We do promise, however, that the definition offered always reflects the worldview of the writer or speaker. Marx dedicated his life to attracting people to his worldview. He was good at it, and his timing was impeccable.
(And the difference between our Praxis Circle team and others is that we admit it. Everyone does it, and what we strive for in the West is mutual respect for such behavior in the public square.)
With this in mind, we must begin our discussion of Marxist narrative with the philosophical notions of “reference” and “sense,” as well as denotation and connotation. They are important terms in the study of language or linguistics. Of course, language and signs are what humans use to discuss truth and other worldly phenomena and concepts. We are not experts in linguistics, but we do know a few basics and will try to be clear when we should yield to the “experts.”
Reference and Sense
Our research reveals that the German philosopher, logician, and mathematician, Gottlob Frege, got credit for developing the concepts of reference and sense in 1892.
The reference of a word is that thing or concept in itself. As an example, the reference of apple is that object or little red fruit, and the reference of a concept like love is that idea you feel in your heart. A reference is what two or more people agree upon as a word’s, phrase’s, sentence’s, or story’s truth value in reality. The word apple denotes the red fruit that fell on Newton’s head, and the word love is what Newton had for God, science, family, and friends.
In contrast, the sense of a word, phrase, sentence, or narrative is the entire thought the word or phrase possesses, regardless of whether it has a single reference. A unicorn has no referent in reality, but it has a known sense going back to 2,000 B.C. (a horse sometimes with wings like a bird, usually with one horn and often with other features of other animals).
Isaac Newton is the proper name referent being an actual human being, but the person in history we know as Isaac Newton has a much larger sense than “any old Joe” (or Isaac). “Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.” The morning star has the same referent as the evening star (Venus), but utterly different senses. What words denote is one thing, but what they connote can be a “horse of a different color.”
References tend to point to something or someone and senses tend to assume a place in language and worldview, among other references and senses. Here we pass to experts with the observation that distinction between reference and sense can be hazy.
Also, we understand that reference and sense are not exactly the same concepts as denotation and connotation, but they are also tough for laymen to distinguish, as well. Postmodernists are famous for the terrific insight that people can get stuck in language and thought versus reality. (And let’s not let this happen to us.)
Value and facts are hard to separate. Which is America, your spouse, your best friend, your child, your bird dog, your trusty pick-up truck, jack-knife, or microwave?
And yet, how could postmodernists make the distinction without granting the idea of reality? You got me. (They don’t care about truth, logic, and reason because it reduces their power and destroys their arguments.)
More typically, one hears the phrase “sense and reference,” the title of Frege’s paper On Sense and Reference, more often than “reference and sense.” We decided to begin our explanation in reverse order to highlight truth’s primary connection to reality in our worldview over concepts, even though the mind and consciousness to we realists (versus nominalists) are as real as molecules. E.g., mathematics is real.
Indeed, materialists like Marxists have a very tough time describing what anything beyond things really are – like concepts, math, and capitalism. If they are honest, their materialist worldview won’t permit them to allow for anything beyond matter or energy (different forms of the same thing).
That’s why throughout history they have slipped so easily, if not going there immediately, directly, and consistently, during power struggles, being either the underdog or the oppressor themselves, into serious violence or mass murder. We will be saying this over and over again: Marxism is a good ideology for revolution, but it offers nothing but misery long term after the revolution is won.
Surprisingly, however, the absence of spirit or mind in the Marxist worldview doesn’t stop Marxists from getting into the dialectic ring of ideas and argumentation. Of course not.
Why? Because ideas are their primarily weapon for revolution and domination (before they become free to use guns).
And why not use whatever violent means are necessary? That’s frequently what they though their worldview glasses choose to see in others – violence, domination, oppression, victimhood.
At every stage of history, they see the oppressed and the oppressors – until humanity with Marxism’s secret knowledge inevitably through purely social forces encounters its utopia, which is a good lead in to the core of this post that explains how Marxists see capitalism as a reference in their grand historical scheme.
(As you can see by now, paradox doesn’t bother Marxists much either. In addition, they insist on embracing the process of or praxis in history from a predominantly negative point of view that always defeats its goals in the long run. Every single time.
Marxism is a religion of revolution or dismantling structures, not building them. It has nothing to offer there. All of the admirable goals Marxism claims were stolen from the Judeo-Christian cultures into which it was born, and its baseline philosophy offers only quicksand, again, risking social destruction and death.)
Capitalism as a Marxist Reference
While finding a precise definition of capitalism acceptable to all is nearly impossible, most will grant that capitalism is not a thing out there in the world like a donkey or rock. It seems to be a concept in the human mind – a system, process with goals, or way of human thinking. PC Contributor Jim Hall discusses this phenomenon of human conceptual reference in the video below. Please note his discussion of “the parade.”
(By the way, most Christian and other religious views of the mind differ from Gilbert Ryle’s. As an example, while not a Christian, PC Contributor Eben Alexander’s would be the polar opposite. Note that this is possible even when Eben is equally dedicated to modern science as Hall, where Eben finds much of his idealism.)
As a result, the only way to discuss a definition of capitalism is via other concepts and an endless stream of referents from the American flag to factories to money. Given the complexity of human thinking, we can see immediately how that reference can blend with sense and denotation with connotation.
In any case, Marxist references for capitalism may be summarized using five words or phrases: God, time and space, institutional form, economic system, and anthropology. We will comment briefly on each of these five, offering a degree of sense to each reference, then conclude with a brief overview of another way of thinking that makes capitalism go “Poof!”, like the mind itself in Marxist thinking.
Speaking of going “Poof!” We won’t dwell for long on the Marxist idea of God, the spiritual world, and spirituality. Of course, for Marx there is none. Marx with Freud agreed that religion is a useful fiction at best and an “opiate of the people” at worst. Sad to say, this does not trouble Elite Christians as much as it should. Such Western leaders as Winston Churchill, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and John Paul II have warned us.
In spite of such sage advice, many Wokesters, liberation theologists, and democratic socialists mistakenly believe they can co-exist with Marxists. A common belief these groups share (some but certainly not all) is that sex is just a glass of water, a thirst alone requiring satisfaction. In addition, these groups have easily adjusted their materialist or naturalist worldview from infinite time to the Big Bang, and they share a full faith in evolution of and between species.
In contrast, Western monotheists of all varieties including Islam believe in a Creator God who is uncreated, exists in a spiritual world on some basis, and intervenes in any number of ways to various degrees in this world (whether purely material or not). We Abrahamic monotheists believe there is overwhelming evidence of this in personal experience, recorded history, and science. Science appears to us increasingly to be telling the metaphorical story of our ancient texts.
In sum, Marxists believe that man is the measure of all things, and most theists believe that God is the measure of all things, each sovereign – either God or man – determining Truth in the respective narrative. We have referred to these narratives as the Creator God and Man God Stories or Narratives (CGS/N or MGS/N; via link see the heading down the page) in the past. Indeed, these narratives divide all worldviews into two corners, though they need not be adversarial.
II. Time and Space
The young Marx bragged about plagiarizing his teacher’s (G.W.F. Hegel’s) dialectical scheme of history about Spirit, removed God, and inserted scientific materialism.
Granted, even though Hegel and Marx disagreed on God, Spirit, and Mind, they agreed on a lot, too. Most important, they agreed on capital T Truth and that human history, as played out on the stage of time and space, can be broken down into distinct historical stages (though their stages are not identical).
Marx’s historical stages are: primitive communism (hunter gathers), slavery (Greece and Rome), feudalism (Europe’s Middle Ages), capitalism (early modernity to today), socialism (failed everywhere tried), and communism (failed everywhere tried).
Indeed, the Marxist belief in Truth explains why Marxists and postmodernists will never be comfortable bedfellows. However, there is an easy explanation of their current alliance: When the two groups see alignment in defining America’s oppressors and oppressed, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
To proceed, Marx believed that humanity’s advancement toward the final utopia was determined or inevitable, and utterly beyond the control of any one individual. Marxism is about social collective history and the system. The oppressors and the oppressed define each stage. It’s not your fault. We are victims.
In this sense capitalism is the fourth stage of human history in time and space – an epoch of time – that so far defines modernity consisting of around 300 years, depending on definition. Marx clearly saw it in what we see today as the early stages of the Industrial Revolution.
Clearly, everyone is his day was experiencing the thrills and trauma of the shift from rural agricultural to urban industrial urban society, with populations increasing as never before due to vast increases in prosperity.
III. Institutional Form
Marx is particularly famous for the insight or claim that all institutions within each phase of history or epoch are arranged to their DISadvantage (in the sense they will topple over) by the particular epoch’s oppressors at the cost and misery of the oppressed. As a result, each epoch must end in revolution until global communism occurs. The dominant power in each historical Marxist stage always falls, and another power ascends.
A commonality between historical stages is that each stage has different oppressor/oppressed casts. In addition, within each of history’s historical stages, all institutions are closely related in supporting the oppressing class.
This is an excellent insight that is certainly true: that institutions tend to support those in power. It certainly was not original to Karl Marx, however, and it goes back to ancient times. Of course, whether such a state of affairs is good or bad depends on who is in power. We will expand on this thought in Renaming Capitalism II.
The rub tends to be in whether the powerful as individuals or in groups must always be oppressive, and, again, how transitions actually occur (violent versus peaceful) between historical stages. The Fall of the Soviet Union did not involve violent revolution, and there are many other non-violent examples of significant transition. Such questions are extremely important, and again, we will save some of this discussion for later.
But let’s give this “Institutional Form” referent a hint of color by briefly comparing perhaps the earliest fully documented Marxist stage of history, slavery, with our current historical stage in the West, capitalism.
Rome depended on slavery from the beginning, and its dependence increased over time. Slavery was everywhere in the ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. During the no less than 1,000 years of the Roman Empire, Marx argues, all of Rome’s religious, political, economic, and social institutions (and the laws and customs that supported them) during the Marxist historical stage of slavery were closely interwoven to ensure the master’s dominance over slaves, including a pecking order where rulers through an aristocracy dominated the lower orders.
During much of the Roman Empire, slaves were perhaps 50% of the labor force (mostly white or Mediterranean) in various places. (Generally, before 1861 in North America, the percentage of slaves was much smaller, approximating 10% overall.) Slavery started dying out in Europe during early feudalism (the next Marxist historical stage), and Christian Europe led the world in finally making slavery illegal in the 1800’s. And yet, slavery still exists to a significant degree in various forms all over the world.
In contrast to Marx’s slavery stage, Marxist capitalism orients all institutions to support the bourgeoisie or middle class as the oppressors over the “working class” and every other Identity Politics minority. (Granted, it’s tough to distinguish bourgeoisie Babbits from middle class blue collar works today in America. Everyone carries around an Apple computer and iPhones – but you know who you are. We can quickly see how ridiculous Marxism gets very quickly.)
By implication the church supports the government, and government supports the free economy, and the monogamous family (the “patriarchy” being husband and wife) supports all of the above. The Christian monogamous family became the foundation of Western civilization during the Middle Ages with free choice and romance gaining a toehold among European nobility. (We suspect there was plenty of love among the “peasantry,” too! 🙂
It’s all a cluster – you get the idea. Any Homer Simpson, like we Dads here at Praxis Circle, can only LOL that we’re held up by Wokesters and BLM fanatics as somehow still patriarchal, family Mafia Dons. Those “good old days” now go back decades to even hundreds of years in many circles.
And yet, in Russia in 1917, the revolutionaries believed the working class worldwide would rise up during World War I to defeat the Babbits, George Baileys (It’s a Wonderful Life), and early Homer Simpsons to produce World Revolution. This Big Boom would then propel all into the socialist stage of Marxist institutional form, and our problems as human beings would be over.
Even prior to World War I, the worker-based Soviets were organized in Russia’s urban areas in anticipation of this revolution, and they explain the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s name (the U.S.S.R.). We did a five-part series centering on Soviet Marxism, the Russian Revolution, and Dr. Samuel Baron, a Russian history professor.
When Communists (naming their party after the ultimate end game) got frustrated that the “working class” (the fancy world being proletariat) worldwide actually liked their growing prosperity and freedom, and especially loved their countries, during and after World War I, they decided to change strategy and look for other oppressed folks who might feel victimized and who would eventually support revolution.
We are not joking. They had to be true to their worldview: Even the Marxism vanguard sees revolution as only happening spontaneously from the ground up. (That’s how they justify their elitist, Leninist party takeovers. Their top-down imposed “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Does this make sense yet?)
Such mid-course situational challenges resulted in Antonio Gramsci’s proposed change of Marxist strategy in the 1920’s and 1930’s, which led to the Woke movement we have today, stressing other oppressed identities: race, gender, class (still), etc.
One is reminded of the 1960’s hit comedy Get Smart where Agent Maxwell Smart continues to lie and then fall back on more silly fibs: “The oppressed proletariat! Would you believe Sidney Poitier? Would you believe Elton John? Would you believe Caitlyn Jenner?”
Yes, oppression is literally everywhere in America; we are suffering unspeakably as a result.
Well, it turns our professional revolutionaries like BLM’s founders still need to make a living in the real world just like everyone else (unless they get tenure). In other words, one thing revolutionary wannabes are not is stupid.
But the key point about the Marxist Institutions is that they are intertwined at each Marxist historical stage, and it is inevitable that they will fail until they wither away in utopia, the last and final Marxist epoch of time and space. All institutions will disappear in Communism because people will get along so well.
IV. Economic System
An economic system is what most Americans and Westerners believe they are talking about when conversing among themselves and with Marxist revolutionaries, many of whom are residing within “capitalist” institutions today getting paid while they advocate for Socialist revolution.
Lucky for them, geniuses like Trotsky and Lenin determined from their Elite point of view that we can actually skip the latter part of capitalism and even socialism and go quickly into Communist utopia with their guidance. It turns our Marxism always relies on Elites, particularly in the role of planning our lives and the economy.
The Woke Elites today who cancel productive lives daily have similar self-confidence, while they are not yet ready to murder anyone over it, just yet.
When Westerners want politely to suggest to Marxists that they have a good worldview, too, they point out that their institutional systems of “democratic capitalism” began to evolve around 1,500 B.C., just to pick a starting time near Moses and Homer’s stories.
An early Praxis Circle Contributor and organizational hero, Michael Novak, who understood all of the issues surrounding the word capitalism for Americans, wrote a fabulous book entitled The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (April 1982) to explain that what Marxists call capitalism is actually the direct result of the influence of Classical Judeo-Christianity (CJC) in the West, the same force that created our social structure and even modern science itself.
Mr. Novak told us in private that he used the word capitalism in his title, but that he didn’t like it much either. He believed the best strategy still early after the Fall of the Berlin Wall was to expand the definition of capital.
In fact, as we have suggested already, many have argued that Christianity created Marxism and then postmodernism, too. Clearly, freedom has few bounds unless human wisdom consistently intervenes. (Moreover, what history has taught over and over is that if wisdom doesn’t intervene, God and reality will.)
Of course, the CJC idea of time and space is extremely different from the Marxist idea – we would say almost the exact opposite, with the qualification, again, that both rely on Truth. The CJC view features a love of God and man, whereas Marx pits man against man in a Hobbesian fashion. Not a surprise, Hobbes was an early out-the-closet atheist like Marx – but without the benefit of Locke, Kant, and Hegel.
Not only is there a difference in Western thinking about God between Marxism on the one hand and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on the other, there is an extreme difference in anthropology. While full explanations of each of the five key referents headlined here are far beyond the scope of this post, before winding this one up, we will summarize a most fundamental difference between Marxism and Christianity, anthropology.
Marxists believe that humanity’s driving force is economics, wealth, money, etc. As mentioned already, while sex is nice and explains much of the Far Left’s rationalizing in Identity Politics, it’s utterly secondary while remaining quite plentiful in Marxist culture. (“And how can one argue with that?” they say. Well, Touché.)
The Marxist economic principle is Marxism’s starting point within its scientific materialism, explaining why their human being is homo economicus. Its anthropology includes a determinism throughout human life; i.e., free will is illusory.
In contrast, CJCer’s believe in the homo sapien – knowledgeable, rational, wise being – with full, God-given free will. There is no way to choose among alternatives to attain virtue without it. Knowledge is what every human gains each day and compiles with memory; reason is what we just finished a six-part series on; and wisdom is what wise people strive for in life each day, knowing they will never fully attain it.
Many Westerners summarize their Western thinking accumulated over millennia in the category of “natural law” to observe that humans are quite capable of being freely motivated by any number factors: love, power, sex, wealth, charity, the list is endless. We are capable of striving for and obtaining virtue; many Westerners, if not the majority, see virtue on some basis, rather than money, as life’s primary goal. No duh.
Is there a Western saying better known than this: When an idol, “money is the root of all evil”? Does that saying describe homo economicus or homo sapien? Is one superior to the other? Which would you choose to be?
By now we hope we have clarified why Marxists and Christian historians disagree across the board in social and historical analysis. As one important and close to home example, Marxists believe the American Founders pursued the American revolution to enhance their wealth and power in early-stage capitalism.
In contrast, Christians believe it makes no sense why any of them would risk their lives and fortunes if that were true. The Founders seemed to believe in what they signed as their likely death warrant if they lost, the Declaration of Independence. Read their lips.
Important examples like this of how Marxists and Christians explain history are endless and go the core of who we are as persons and peoples.
Summary of Marxist References
Given the above references and corresponding senses, you can understand why normal Americans and Marxists engage in what was termed in the movie, Cool Hand Luke, a “failure to communicate.”
Today, Wokeness wields the billy club cancelling free speech and behavior.
While Cool Hand Luke was an anti-establishment movie during for the 1960’s Vietnam, its underlying imagery is Christian, timeless, and about love and freedom. While Jesus was not primarily about politics, He was about the Kingdom, as well as limited and good government. Today it is Marxists who are everywhere the oppressors we face who seek to “teach us.”
Fascism is big government-oriented; there is little difference between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Spain, Soviet Russia, and today’s China. This is the Far Left today; for the good of all, Anti-fa and BLM should self-destruct. It is the regular people today who throw the hammer at Big Brother.
And yet, much is our fault because we have failed to speak clearly and adjust to the times. We are talking past each other. This must cease. Matthew, Mark, Luke . . . and John . . . tried to accomplish just this.
Whenever a Marxist hears a regular American call his own time, institutions, economic system, or self a “capitalist engaging in capitalism,” she or he is secretly high-fiving, knowing that the Marxist revolution is one step closer. To the Marxist, capital means primarily money, greed, private ownership, and oppressors keeping all of society’s wealth and power – the heart of the problem being homo economicus and the ownership of the “means of production.”
Naively, the American citizen thinks she or he is talking only about our free and good economic system, supported by our limited federal government system that’s “under God,” as Christians live recognizing their sinful nature, yet striving to be virtuous as God commands.
Again, talk about a failure to communicate. Our references don’t overlap, and every sense is at the opposite end of the planet.
In the 1950’s when most Boomers came into the world, most Marxists were either in the Soviet Union or China, European political parties, or hidden in American universities. To even discuss the overthrow of the American government was an act of treason.
Today, Americans pay Congressmen, Senators, and various NGO bureaucrats harboring Marxism to plot our overthrow. They are everywhere. No, Marxism did not die in 1991 with the Soviet Union’s end. Marxism only needed time to adjust. China took note and accelerated toward greater economic freedom because it works.
In Renaming Capitalism – Part II of III, we will discuss why we might consider renaming and even reimagining our time, institutional system, and economic system as creastruction instead of capitalism. Like capitalism, it’s a word that can be used interchangeably across the board of referents to connote time, institutions, economic systems, and especially human nature.
It’s high time that those who hold the Abrahamic worldviews, compatible human secular and other worldviews, and all good Americans band together to drop totally the word capitalism and replace it with other words that mean what we say. We owe it in truth and clarity to our religious and ideological adversaries. Only then will we understand ourselves and place those on notice who seek to control, destroy, and remake our beloved nation.
It’s a strange idea, and we expect few to agree. But just understanding the point will advance the ball well down the field. Go T.I.G.E.Rs! (Yet again. See this weekend’s Super Bowl.)
As just suggested, Christians and Marxists are adversaries, not necessarily enemies. Marxists themselves set us against each other by how they see us and our CJC worldview, which is always shaping our constructed world. We are taught to love our enemies; they are taught to destroy them in the right situation by any means necessary. Their worldview makes this easy to justify.
At every turn they tell us their intentions. Should we not listen, believe them, and return the favor with clear communication matching deed? “Be ye doers of the Word?”
Most certainly, Marxism is not compatible with any reasonable interpretation of Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christianity and thousands of years of praxis in trying to implement it. We are building our world to last, especially since Christ’s New Creation broke into time. And there can be no doubt we’ve been doing this front of mind, sometimes well and often ineptly since the Resurrection through constant social experimentation.
We shouldn’t keep repeating the same mistakes.
Capitalism’s true, double-secret, triple bottom line: We worship our Creator as creatures, and everything else are just idols.
Let’s get on with it.