The women especially were the most obliging in every respect, and, upon the whole, we should have been the most suspcicious of human beings had we entertained a single thought of perfidy on the part of a people who treated us so well. January 18, 1827..

The islanders for whom we entertained such inordinate feelings of esteem were among the most barbarous, subtle, and bloodthirsty wretches that ever contaminated the face of the globe. January 18, 1827.

In truth, from everything I could see of these wretches, they appeared to be the most wicked, hypocritical, vindictive, bloodthirsty, and altogether fiendish race of men upon the face of the globe. It is clear we should have had no mercy had we fallen into their hands. February 20, 1827.

The above quotations are from a 19th century novel about antartic polar exploration. It was published in 1838, as The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket by Harper Brothers. The author? None other than Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849).

The people described in Poe’s novel are black. All black. The “whites” of their eyes are black. Even their teeth are black. They have one fear: white. The animals of the island, including the albatross, were all black. Birds eggs were black. The people’s huge village, on an island nearest the South Pole, comprised huts “of the most miserable description imaginable,” and lay in no perceivable order. The heaths were all covered with black animal skins. The narrator (Pym) says the “village” wasn’t worthy of the name.

Edgar Allan Poe, 1809-1849

Commentators on Poe’s novel see a dramatization of some slave camp in the deep South. In the experience of the narrator, commentators see an expression of the South’s worst fear: a slave revolt. Be that as it may, there are insights–perhaps into both the white and black psyches, that are apparently pertinent today.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday he apologized to Shirley Sherrod for forcing her to resign from her government job in Georgia.

Regarding the Sherrod Charade, that is, the hooplah over Shirley Sherrod, the NAACP, and the “White” House, it is abundantly clear that the Negro race is psychologically insatiable. No sociological evolution or government coerced socio-economic advancement will suffice to remedy the pertetual disquietude of the foreign race.

The nagging, pestilential error that white people make is pity. The Negroes will never achieve equality as long as white people pity them.

Does the American Negro deserve pity? Is he to be an object of special compassion? If so, why? Is he not in fact equal?

I say it has nothing to do with slavery or history. It has to do with the fact that black people feel as uncomfortable around white people as white people feel around black people. The contrast of appearance, behavior, and values is simply extravagant. There is no remedy.

Martin Luther King’s insistance on “character” was way off mark. The last thing the Negro needs is to be judged by his character. Character is the one thing profundly lacking. Or, we should say, character is the one thing most offensive about him, moreso than any appearance. The black man in American has always been known for not having character.

Rev. Charles C. Jones (1801-1863) wrote of this issue in 1842, in The Religious Instruction of the Negroes In The United States (Savannah: Thomas Purse, 1842).

A knowledge of the moral and religious condition of the Negroes is essential to correct feeling and action thereto. Until we arrive at such knowledge and have it pressed upon our serious consideration, we shall have no just sense of obligation–we shall feel no criminality for past neglect–no disposition for future amendment: nor shall we be able to adopt plans for their improvement, as we must necessarily become acquainted with the nature and extent of a disease before we can hopefully prescribe for it.

Indeed, Rev. Jones writes from a differen era, and surely we should expect the modern American Negro to have developed far beyond these early descriptions. Alas, Rev. Jones prophesies, “the race has been from time immemorial just what it is and just what it must continue to be.” Yet, Jones calls for Christian missionary work among the Negroes. That is the point of his book. He says that the white missionary work for the Negro faces serious disadvantages.

The first disadvantage which I shall mention is our intimate knowledge of the degraded moral character of the Negroes. From childhood we have been accustomed to their slovenly, and too frequently, their scanty dress; to their broken English, ignorance, vulgarity, and vice. What in them would disgust or grieve a stranger, or truly afflict us if seen in white persons, we pass by with little or no impression, as a matter of course;–they are Negroes. Their character is held in low estimation, throughout the United States; and, considering what it is, not without reason; for that character cannot be esteemed which in itself is not estimable. Whatever is idle, dissolute, criminal, and worthless, attaches to them. Unconsciously, or rather, instinctively, we determine what the fruits must be from their known character, condition, and circumstances; and when they do appear, we are not surprised. We say, “what better can be expected?”

The Rev. Jones elaborates with excruciating detail the social and psychological observations to be made in the antibellum days.

In 2010, however, we might expect to see a different sort of Negro in America. We certainly do. A marvelous development has taken place. There are great achievers among American Negroes, achievers in mind and body. However, if the character of the people is reflected in their “leaders,” we cannot say there has been significant development of soul. Black leaders parade poverty, pity, and pigmentation prostitution. Nothing more. They promote dependency, disquietude, resentment, and subversion. American black people have never had a worthy leader. They have instead clowns, puppets, pimps, and aggrandizers.

But, as long as white people pity black people, the Negro will always be a slave, a mechanical, reactionary social problem. As long as white people do not render true equality to the blacks–by not pitying them, not giving them special favors, not groveling before them with apologies, blacks will never be free. They will continue to manipulate the white man, continue to aggrandize their plight of appearance–disguising their own self-depreciation in the cloak of “slavery,” and continue to deceive themselves. Compassionate but cowardly whites continue to let the Negro remain in such a pestilential condition.

The Negroes Soetoro and Holder (that is, president “Obama” and his appointed attorney Eric Holder) have declared war on the white race. Never mind their war on America. It is the white race they venture to punish. That’s what’s happening in America today.

As an American Indian, I am amazed and dismayed. I admire the white man for his former warrior’s strength, yet, I also admire him for his compassion and self-consciousness. He is unique in both. However, at this stage, he needs to re-assess the effects of his proud conscience. His glorious soul needs some readjustment. He needs to realize that he is the envy of all dark races. He is hated. He is the object of their pent up fury. He must measure his compassion now. He must limit the indulgence in his own conscience.

The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant must be brave enough to bear the burden of superior strength, talent, and mind. If he allows himself to be destroyed, for his conscience’ sake, he will be of no use to anyone. His accomplishments in the world will come to nought, and the hords of the heathen will quickly reduce the world to the descriptions of Arthur Gordon Pym.

Of course, when we think of the Jews, we immediately think of the Holocaust of World War II, and the Nazi campaign to eliminate the Jewish population. But, the fact is, there was a time when Jews eliminated others.

In written history, (if the Hebrew scriptures are to be accounted as history), the first recorded case of one group eliminated another group is found in Genesis 34. Two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, slaughtered all the males of a Hivite town in central Cana’an. Call it an ‘honor’ kiling. The war lord of the city had defiled their sister, and they planned and executed the genocide of the whole city. (Their father Jacob was most displease with this action. “Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land,” he complained.) This was some time in the 20th century BC.

Earlier in that same century, Abraham had twice manipulated his political circumstances through the beauty of his wife Sarah (Gen. 12:11; 20:2). These were crises, certainly, but the beauty of Jewish women was becoming an established commodity. In fact, Abraham’s son, Isaac, played the same card with his wife Rebekah (Gen.26:7).

But the reputation of the Jewish God was the real knock-out. The God of this small family was the One apparently known to be the One who claimed to have destroyed the entire human population (save eight) by the Flood. This was not a God most people were anxious to warm up to. Nor were they particularly fond of anyone who claimed to be. This is the God that set a nuclear holocaust on two of the largest, most prosperous cities in Cana’an–Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24,25). And so it seems that the Jewish God had a name for holocaust Himself. Mass genocide was His ultimatum.

And so, before the Jews even get started as a people, their name “stunk.” Their God “stunk.” Their God was violent, and they were violent. (But they had beautiful women!)

And when they did grow into a people, their debut as a nation was marked by astounding disaster and cataclysm. We call it the plagues of Egypt. Mass destruction followed the Jews.

The point here is that, in the view of the non-believer, the non-Jew, or, the heathen, the Jews were a dreaded lot. To encounter them was an ominous risk. It could men unsustainable loss. It could mean annihilation.

The Hebrew God was definitely into genocide, the elimination of masses of people–men, women, children, and even animals. Near the beginning of the 10th century BC, King Saul was commaned to commit such a genocide against the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:3). And this was for what the Amalekites did to the Jews three and a half centuries before! It may have seemed arbitrary to everyone then, but, the Jewish God never forgets, no matter how much time passes. Il grand Siciliano can forgive, but He never forgets.

Yes, and this dreadful, fearful God nevertheless invites all people to come before Him and worship! He wants to be good to people. He wants them to follow His ways. Whatever reputation He created through the Jews, He also made it clear that His throne pertains to all nations (Isaiah 56:6,7). It behooves all ethnicities abroad to come and make their case before the God of the Jews.

So, how do we do that with this ghastly image of Jewish people, and the “death and hell” that follows them? There are some real characters out there we have to deal with, like George Soros, the Rothchilds, even skunks like Bernie Madoff. Why entertain any regard for them or their God? (Never mind their fair women, for the moment.) And what about those pestilential, parasitical monoliths like the Amercian Civil Liberites Union, and the Anti-Defemation League? I’m not sure what these organizations think the source of aversion to Jews is, but, I suggest they might try looking at the Bible. If they want to ban something from public consumption, they’ll have to ban the Bible. The most articulate, anti-Semitic utterances ever made, from the mouth of the heathen, anyway, are in the Bible. Try Ezra 4, when they wrote the Persian emperor in the 5th century BC, after the Jews had returned from Babylon, and had begun to rebuild (4:12,13;15,16):

Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.

Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.

…search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed.

We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.

No question about the Gentile attitude toward Jews in that testimony, is there? Just remember, it’s recorded in the Hebrew scriptures.

The Jews live with complete aversion, always. That seems to be the price of their God. Yet, they prosper. That’s one of the benefits. “The Lord was with Jacob.” “The Lord was with Joseph.” The Lord is doing something in the world, His way, in His time. We’ll just have to live with that. If an occasional Jews becomes piquantly annoying, like Bernard Lewis, who is denying the Christian Armenian “holocaust” in his defence of Muslim Turkey; or if an organization like the ACLU, or the ADL, work perpetually to remove Christianity from a nation which was founded by Christians; or even if we personally get shafted or swindled, or otherwise out-smarted by a Jewish person; in the end, what’s the difference? If the Jewish God is indeed the Lord, and hold the keys to eternity, and, moreover, invites each and every human being to become acquainted with Him, and thus to prepare for an everlasting shalom, what does matter if we have continual run-ins with the Jews here and now?

Though the liberal Jews have sought desperately to change the Jewish image (with a couple of millennia to support their bid), the fact is, the Jewish people are not pacifists. The Jews are a warrior race. Even todays Jews, who tend to use their pens rather than their swords, are the still the decendents of profound aggressors. The Jews are always making a move in the world.

This is the Jew of the Bible. This is the God of the Bible. Now, there cousins, the Arabs, and their make-believe, rip-off religion, think to compete with the Jews; but they will never succeed. The rest of the races in the world can only watch the conflict. In a way, we can choose sides. Yes, we can even support one or the other.

Personally, I chose the Jews. I chose the Jewish God. No, I’m not Jewish. But, I regard Jesus, the Jewish folk rabbi, as the Speaker of the House, so to “speak.” I consider His efforts a personal invitation to join the ranks of the Israel of God. Jesus is for Gentiles, in a way. If we have any portion in the Lord, it is by His bloody provision. The invitation has always been from the God of all nations, but, our place at the table was bought with a very, very high price. Why refuse? The food is tops.

In the meantime, we are behooved to abide with the Jews here and now. They are here. They cannot be removed. There are those who have tried to remove them, and those maniacs end in ineffable infamy. Not the right take on the Jews.

And finally, there’s that crazy matter of Jewish women. What happened there at the end of Job’s life, that story of incomprehensible irony, frustration, and anger? (Job 42:15.) He was given a second family. And this one apparently beat the other one. The chief distinction?

And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.

So, I guess that’s it. Beautiful women. Our only recess in this whirlwind of agonies down here on earth. Whatever it is, however superficial it is, and whatever tortures of its own that come with it, the beauty of a woman is apparently some necessary and healthy diversion, to say the least.

It’s been part of the Jewish story from the very beginning. Beautiful women, and violence. Personal love, and mass holocaust. Is this some mystical balance? Are these things in any way related? Who knows?

The next time you see a beautiful Jewish woman, just think about the Bible. Think about the God. And be cool about Jewish people.

Mel Gibson obviously has no privacy. He’s up for his second ordeal over a third “slur” made in personal, ‘altered states,’ as it were. First (four years ago) is was “f—ing Jews,” then recently “niggers” and “wetbacks.” (Wonder why he didn’t use the term “kikes” for Jews.)

Mel Gibson, user of ethnic stereotypes
in private conversation.

Intoxicated or not, everyone used to have rights to private conversation. Being taped in private circumtances, without consent, is usually against the law. Being taped by someone who did the taping for the obvious purpose of taking it to the public, is a rather cruel infringement on personal rights. Everyone is entitled to his own feelings. Let the angels do the recording. Let the books of Heaven keep the records. It is not for man to continually invade his fellowman. It is deep spiritual violation. Nathanial Hawthorne would have called it (in The Scarlet Letter, 1850) a tresspass on “the sanctity of a human heart.”

We don’t know the story between Mel Gibson and his paramour Oksana Gregorieva. We’re just eavesdroppers, via the professional gossip-mongers (mud rakers, or “news” reporters). Yes, it all sounds very bad, and unfortunate. Mel feels his Russian girl friend has turned tramp on him, glorifying herself in the part, and he is personally offended to the max. This is understandable, but, this is the risk of her acting the tramp part to begin with, and Mel should never have taken advantage of it. He’s wrong to think of her as a tramp, when he took advantage of the fact that she was. He’s as guilty as she is, on that score. But, he obviously has higher expectations of her than she is willing or capable of meeting. This is the outcome. He’s paying that price now, as will the poor innocent child of the affair.

But, the question pertains to privacy, not feelings or morals. Does a celebrity have the right to privacy? Does his profession forfeit privacy?

Will Gibson maintain the image now?

Never mind the “slurs.” Those is quite immaterial and unimportant. They have nothing to do with the real issue. Society is a complex of stereotypes and public images. People have their prejudices, aversions, and natural preferences. This is all natural. It is a manifestation of Gestalt psychology. No amoung of tyrannical “Big Brother” law or “Nanny State” law can alter this natural conditioning.

Indeed, the greatest proponents of such “thought police” draconianism are the most guilty of that for which they feign condemnation. Negro Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. “Barack Hussein Obama”) and his Negro appointee Eric Holder are absolute hatist racists. This is obvious to everyone at this point. They hate white people. They disdain other races. Their purpose is to use Negroes to corrupt and to destroy American society. This is why Barry and Holder honor the racist clownery of “King Shabazz” (), lauding Negro hate with the highest esteem, even placing it above the law! (As Rush Limbaugh noticed, the msm is excited to play the Mel Gibson tapes, but not the Shabazz tapes. Mel’s words were meant to be private. Shabazz words were meant to be public.) The vainglorious Samir Shabbazz is none other that Maurice Austin, from the troubled projects of Trenton, New Jersey. Just another angry black youth turned professional hatist. Actually, the kid was born in west Philly.
The former Nation of Islam member just has a new gig now, the New Black Panther Party.

Negro hate is good. White stereotyping is bad. Elaborate Negro hate speech, even the call to murder white children, is blessed by our Negro government in Washington. The media is thrilled to hype the juvenile Negro hatred. White liberals luxuriate in the foam. Ironically, it is the so-called “conservative” media that is giving Clown Shabazz all the air time. Liberal media prefers to attack Gibson.

James Edwards (Political Cesspool) posted a blog, “The Crucifixion of Mel Gibson” on Kevin McDonald’s Occidental Observer. It seems the Hollywood is still smarting over Gibson’s movie about Christ, The Passion (2004), and would much prefer to aggrandize immorality through the Negro. Remember how the NYPD was ordered to go see The Passion, to determine if it was going to provoke anti-Semitism? Why, that’s a far greater evil than any murderous immorality pushed through the Negro.

Gibson’s too easy a target now, espcially committed the worst crime of all–using a pejorative racial stereotype–in a private conversation! Why, having made a movie about Christ makes Gibson the most odious individual in the world. Liberals will not have hypocrisy! (Did I just win the award for noting the greatest hypocrisy?)

Gibson’s suffering a lot of heat right now, but it shouldn’t be over private conversation in a private affair. Gibson has never been known to openly, actively, consciously promote hatred against any group, for any reason. He has never been involved, as far as we know, in any hate group, nor has he ever support such a group. Indeed, he has starred in many a movie with Negroes who do in fact hold visceral resentment of the white race and America, like Danny Glover. Well, business is business. Gibson did not let politics intefere with his job.

But now racist politics is interfering with his personal life. Clearly, private conversation is out. Public exposure is in–unless, of course, you’re a liberal. But even their darkest deeds and private thoughts are coming out.

What are we to think of Laura Ingraham’s new book, The Obama Diaries? Not that there is an issue of whether or not they are fake, but that such a tactic would be marketed. That the invasion of privacy is such a cultural trend that the public virtually prefers fiction to truth–this is the upshot. If it’s private, it will sell to the public. The more private, the more craved. It is a remarkable point in American social history. The spiritual, moral condition of the public is stunning. We all understand that the major conservative talk show people are entertainers. There’s no real issue there. (They’re just better at it than the liberal entertainers.) But, this Obama Diaries thing may be over the top. It is an omen. An ominous omen.

Either there are angels among us, or men have turned demonic. Either we let Heaven record our words and deeds, or man will assay to ascend to the divine role himself. That’s what he appears to be doing. Talk of freedom has itself become a would-be private conservation. There will come a day when such talk will be considered incriminating. Thus, without freedom, there will be no conversation at all.

Let’s look at the lay of that land. By 1881, six years after the final Quahada band came into Fort Sill (1875), the Episcopalians started a mission program under J. B. Wicks. But before then, as early as 1869, the Quakers (and Dutch Reform) were working in southwestern Oklahoma among the plains tribes. Yet, even Laurie Tatum made no progress among the Comanche–who still resisted the “civilized” life. (The Comanche got into peyote, anyway, once they did start settling. Some say Quanah Parker brought it into the tribe, but others say Mumsekai.) Commissioner Thomas J. Morgan (under U.S. President Harrison) was a strong assimilationist, and missionaries influenced him to clamp down on the peyote “religion.” But the Comanches were not really considered much of a market for the missionaries. Comanches were still isolationists, psychologically, as well as demographically.

Mumsekai, ca. 1920.

Most of the missionaries established themselves around Anadarko. The Methodist-Episcopal were there. The Reformed Presbyterians were there also. Between 1885 and 1893, there were five different government agents trying to manage the programs. There were Indian schools set up, both mission schools and government schools. It was all about assimilation, to prepare young Indians for American citizenship.

Of course, the original encounter with Christianity, for the Comanche, was the old Spanish mission. That was Catholicism. That involved the imagery, the visual aids, and the trinketry, so to speak. These things do catch the eye. The Tortured Man had a psychological appeal as well. He could take pain. He was brave. But, Comanches were to close to the wind to abide in a domestic setting. They didn’t go for the contemplative life.

So no one made any real headway. Not even the old Mormon “messianic” influence, in the modified, adapted form of Wovoka (Paiute) the Ghost Dance prophet, lasted long. Comanches saw it in 1890. Only a band of Penetekas involved themselves temporarily, and that was because they happened to have been assigned lands bordering some the of the more northern plains tribes down in southwest Oklahoma–and those tribes were getting into it.

Comanches didn’t even go in for the Sun Dance. There’s only one historical recorded dance among the Comanche, at that was in 1874, not long before the Comanche freedom was to end. Comanches just didn’t do the group religion thing. Organized community ceremony was foriegn to the Comanche psyche and its incredible individualism.

Chewing Elk, 1872.

Adventism came into Oklahoma at the turn of the century. Some rural families affined themselves to it. My own Comanche family did. But Adventism was never an influence within the people. It offered nothing beautiful to look at, and nothing emotionally exciting. The end of the world? Comanches had already been through that.

Interesting, though, the word for “Saturday” in turn of the century Comanche was ka po hah rab by. The same basic word for “sabbath.” Probably, po hah is from po ha cut, or power (medicine.) Rab by? I’ll take that for “rabbi.” The Comanche word for “father” is ahp. The way it’s pronounced, it is quite similar to the Hebrew abba. (Ah, the wonders of etymology and linguistics.)

That instinctive Comanche affinity with the wind is showing itself currently in another Christian influence: pentecostalism. This is a community emotion. This is something like the wind. Everyone can feel it together. It has been in Indian country a good while, but, recently, it has blown up a storm right in the middle of Comanche land. It hit the tribal meeting yesterday, July 10, 2010.

At the Comanche Nation Business Committee meeting yesterday, the two new committee members were sworn in, one of whom was Mark Wahadooah. Mr. Wahadooah, who won his election by a 17% margin, clearly considers that fact a serious mandate to act on his campaign promises. He made that distinctly obvious. Mr. Wahadooah is an Assemblies of God activist, and himself was apparently involved in the Palo Duro event which we have addressed. It seems that his faith, and his promises to the people, gave him his great margin of victory over Ed Eschiti for the position of Committee Member No. 2.

Mr. Wahadooah, brings pentecostalism (and tu-taiwo blood) to the very seat of tribal authority. This is of grave concern.

Mr. Wahadooah is a warm and appealing person, with great spirit. He is also very forward, aggressive, and, for his first public showing as a tribal committee member, a bit too much so. He behaved as though he had equal authority as Chairman Michael Burgess. He challenged the committee several times, and repeatedly ignored the kind cautions Chairman Burgess offered him. Of course, Mr. Wahadooah feels he is manifesting the spirit on which he campaigned. He feels he is doing what he was elected to do. He is not repecting any authority above the people who elected him, or, what he considers to be their wants. He feels he is representing them.

This amounts to non-cooperation, at least, and insubordination, at worst. This is the outcome of that kind of aggression. Regardless of the sincerety, the passion, the intent, it manifests itself as disruptive and challenging.

I do not know Mr. Wahadooah, but I know how Comanche meetings go. I am concerned about this. I am concern because the matter of Christian religion is involved in Comanche affairs. The people want honesty, accountability, and transparency. A good number are demanding it, more and more. Shall it come through pentecostalism?

We must remember, leaders are elected to lead, not to follow. The numunu simply cannot lead themselves anymore. We’re not living out the free, open plains now. We’re “organized,” and we’re following rules of order. The affairs of the tribe are hectic, and there are constant crises occurring. Decisions have to be made rapidly, often without consultation. Under the present constitution, there is no possible way for all the Comanche people to know every detail of every situation. There is no possible way to get a consensus on every decision that is made. (This is why I have suggested a very different kind of constitution.)

And so the wind blows in Comanche country. Pentecostal wind. Is it a good thing? Will it blow in the right direction? Will it bring good rain?

I will say only this: there are many different religious groups among Comanche people today. Many Christian denominations, and even some new, non-Christian influences. I would not want to see any one denomination creating a dominant influence. I don’t consider Indian country some ironic hunting ground for competing Christian denominations. Indians have enough problems without this divisive force from the outside. A social hunting ground may be how Indian country is perceived by the outsiders, but, I hope Indians, especially Comanches, can navigate through these high winds, and remain sovereign and independent. I know many Christians want to see Indians become more self-reliant and independent. However, what we saw in Palo Duro in April may not be the path to preserves us.

With Mr. Wahadooah’s premier performance July 10, it is clear that the April affair in Palo Duro was a power grab.

Maybe it was a good thing. Maybe it will lead to good things. I express great caution right now, that’s all. I feel like it is an invasion. I feel we are under seige. This is ironic and agonizing–or, at least, suspicious. I would not want to offend any Christian brother, or any Comanche in this. Good may come of it. I hope it does.

I am only trying to bring a historical perspective to what’s happening, and to help achieve an objective view.

I do not want the chairman to be undermined, and that’s what happened July 10. I express these thoughts with the greatest reserve and concern. Hear me, my people.

EDITOR’S NOTE, July 12
I neglected to mention the earliest Comanche mission of all, the Deyo Baptist Mission, 1888. It was the work of Elton Cyrus Deyo, from Colgate Theological Seminary (Maine). Robert Yappa Teka Coffey (1902-1994) became the first Comanche to be pastor. As a matter of fact, my mother (Norma Portillo) played piano for the congregation when she was a young girl in the early ’30’s. She knew three or four chords on the keyboard, and that sufficed for most hymns.

Timber Bluff, 1872.

Comanches didn’t care what anyone thought about them. They were only concerned that other people, Indian, white, or Mexican, stay out of their territory. Comanches were content with themselves. They needed no social contact with others. They didn’t want any. They were utterly solipsistic.

There are few people in the world that can understand this. Perhaps none today, except some remote tribe in the rain forests who have hidden themselves away.

But the Comanche days of hiding were over. After they saw the horse, they came out into the open, and world was forever changed. Comanches were first noticed by others when they came down from the Southern Rockies onto the plains of southestern Colorado and eastern New Mexico. No one really knows where they came from. (I say the Wind, or Ghengis Kahn.) When once they appeared, they took everything in sight, by force. The horses, the land, the game. No other people were welcomed by them. Instead, the Comanche drove everyone else away, first Indian, then Spanish (Mexican), and they kept the white out for the better part of a century.

After Comanches discovered the musteños (mustangs), their soul mate of the wind, they expanded their hunting empire to the largest of its kind in the history of the American continent. After kicking everyone else out, Comanches creating a kind of private paradise for themselves. It included southestern Colorado, eastern New Mexico, western Oklahoma, and most of Texas. And during all this expansion period, Comanches never number more than ten to twelve thousand.

How did it happen? Efficiency of lethal arms, on the back of a horse. The early European reports said, unlike others, who merely rode the horse, Comanche lived on the horse. They were always in motion, always hunting.

And always raiding. That was the adjunct activity for Comanche bands who wanted a quick fix. The risks may have seem higher, but, the rewards were immediate and well worth it. The Comanche reputation for being blood thirsty, irascible, and vicious surely came from the survivors of raids.

Bullies? Thugs? The bad a– of the plains? Maybe. “Lords of the plains” would be perhaps a more flattering term, if Comanches cared about such things, then, anyway. Among Comanche there was no central government, no single chief, ever, and no seasonal ceremonial gatherings. Comanches seemed without religion, really, or any basic kind of social structure beyond the small “gang.” Spirituality was entirely personal, and the Collective Conscious operated on the quintessence of pragmatism. The people needed no guidance, nor looked for it. Comanchers were a disintegrated scattering of indomitably independent, autonomous bands. Each hunting band was basically an extended family, generally of some twenty-five to thirty people. Early Europeans said the Comanches were never known to fight each other.

If there was an issue, say, over water, over game, a numunukahn (a band) could always break up, and each group was simply strong enough, efficient enough, self-reliant enough, that it could strike out on its own. If there were unwanted inhabitants already on the new territory, the Comanche band could simply drive them off. That’s the way it was for over a century.

As a result of this unusual independence and self-sufficiency of the Comanche, (called “intractability” by my former Yale professor Sydney Ahlstrom), Comanche people never developed complex social skills. Communication was simple and straight. (Indeed, Comanches wouldn’t deign to speak some one else’s language, but instead developed a hand sign languaged–which became the lingua franca of the plains. If you wished actually to speak to the Comanches, you had to learn their language. You see, if you were not Comanche, you didn’t count. You didn’t matter. Comanches had no use for you. It was best for you to stay clear of them altogether.) This absense of refined, systematic communication is notable even today among Comanches, at least to sociologists who have observed with their “European” standards.

When Comanches were all rounded up and corralled down in southwest Oklahoma, and had a government-designed “constitution” coerced upon them (–the 1934 BIA templet imposed on all the plains tribes), the true socio-psychological conditions of the Comanche were apparent. Of a truth, Quanah Parker had already set the pace for permanent and impossible system of unnatural leadership. Within such an iron cowl of alien custom, Comanche people have managed somewhat. I for one have suggested a new type of constitution that would accommodate our original band identities, and according to families. I believe there should be representatives from these groups, and these representatives should form a senate. We should have a tri-part system of government, like the United States government, in fact. What we have is a well-meaning system, imposed, which attempts to let the people lead. But what it does instead is cause perpetual discontent. Families still rule, and, in “secular” terms, this is the epitome of nepotism. Instead of having this all recognized, organized and out in the open, the people are left surmising, mistrusting, and frustrated with whatever leadership happens to be in office.

After years and years, one comes to have a great deal of appreciation for what a Comanche leader endures in the way of ire from the people.

And more than anything else, among modern Comanche people, is the spirit of tolerance–for each other. At our meetings, anyone and everyone has the right to speak. The most uneducated, unskilled, and psychologically embattled female has every whit the same right of the most educated, professionally accomplished, experienced male leader. This is rather phenomenol to witness, for anyone who hasn’t seen it before. Their is a grace, a patience, a forgiving attitude that is ineffable and unrehearsed. This social grace is beyond what is seen in most white Christian churches. It is natural to Comanche people.

I would further say that, in a way, in regard to this forgiving nature toward one another, Comanches were Christian before Christ was ever brought to our plains. For all the savagery, for all the rage, for all the bloody murder, rape, and plunder, Comanches have deep within them an incredible sense of spiritual transcendence. I suppose a true Freudian psychologist would not be surprised, but would even expect such a contrast. The psyche is a most agile accommodator. Emerson would have seen a law of compensation. It is a balance within, deep, and abiding.

Comanche Chairman Michael (Yellowfish) Burgess
thanks the Texas Christians for their arrangements,
and for the opportunity to share with them the
importance of Palo Duro Canyon to the Comanche.
April, 2010. ComancheNationNews

I’m sure that the recent experience in Palo Duro involved some of this natural Comanche transcendence. Our chairman Michael (Yellowfish) Burgess, and those that accompanied him, I’m sure found no offense in graciously accepting whatever it was the Texas pentecostals wanted to offer. I consider that gesture–of being there and letting the white Texans pray before them–was an act of tolerance on the part of the Comanche. That’s what it would have been for me, if I knew about it, and was there.

However, I would not have been there, even if I had known. Ironically, my own sense of Christianity would not have allowed me to be there, even as a Comanche. It was a modern Comanche thing to do, to be gracious to an outsider, but, I’m not sure it was a Christian thing to do, ultimately. I’m not even sure that our chairman was there because he is Christian. I know he was there as a Comanche. And I know he is a Christian. I just think, in that particular incident, he was being more Comanche.

Comanche Chairman, Michael (Yellowfish) Burgess.

Well, this is the opinion of one who is part white, therefore part Comanche, and…part Christian. I can be more “irascible” than an old, free Comanche; I can see what whites see; and I think I’m aware of what Christian spirituality is. I believe Comanches are Christian by nature, at least toward one another, at least in the old free days.

So there. The remnant of that gracious spirit is alive and well today. We may be a little confused when we relate to those who aren’t Comanche. We may make mistakes. There may be misunderstanding. But, if anyone is offering Christian apologies, I think it’s a bit impertinent to Comanches. But, as I said, if we’re going to accept it from the Texans, then we need to make a quick trip down to Mexico and offer our own “Christian” apologies to Calderon.

Members of the Texas Apostolic Prayer Network (TXAPAN) kneel before Comanche Nation chairman Michael Burgess and two other Comanches, and “apologize” for a “battle” at Palo Duro Canyon in 1874.

This story was told on the front page of the Comanche Nation News, June edition, 2010. The dramatic prayer incident took place this past April 23 and 24. To my knowledge, this event was not advertised among the Comanche people, nor was there any general invitation given. The June edition in the Comanche paper is the first I knew of it. I know I’m not the only Comanche that was unaware of it.

This event is ironic, the history dubious, and, in my opinion, the incident somewhat egregious. With all due respect for my beloved Comanche people and our leaders, I beg to differ with the idea that anyone owes Comanches an apology, or that Comanches need to offer forgiveness to anyone. Indeed, if Comanches accept apologies from anyone, then Comanches need to go and offer their apologies to the Apache, the Spanish, and the Texans. After all, Comanches were the aggressor–first toward other Indians, then toward the Spanish and Mexican population, in Mexico and in Texas. That the white Texans should finally out-gun and out-number the Comanche is no reason for the Texans to apologize. And Comanches certainly owe the Texans no apology. The Comanches were themselves invaders of the territory occupied by others. Then Comanches became victims of invasion.

Of a truth, Comanches should go down to Mexico, arrange a meeting with President Felipe Calderon, and kneel before him, confessing their brutal, savage abuse of Mexican people, and pray to God for forgiveness, from heaven and from the Mexican people.

Señor Felipe Calderon, el Presidente de Mexico.

But, what we have here in Palo Duro is an attempt of Christians to be graphic about their spiritual values. The reality of their faith is something they want emblazoned in the minds of the public. No, I don’t think they’re insincere, but I do think they’re melodramatic. This gesture is a fine piece of public relations, but, it is, in my opinion, historically and ethically mistaken, if theologically reasonable. It is effectually superficial, if based on a sincere attempt to manifest spiritual values in a sociological way. I’m afraid it smacks of liberalism, of reparations, of “historical justice” (if but in gesture), and really has no function beyond the intent of good will. It is not in fact about justice. It is completely off the mark.

As the news story relates, there were other tribes involved in the 1874 Palo Duro battle. This is indeed news to me, and probably to a lot of honest, informed Comanches. Apache, Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho were included in the apostolic church round up. It was a “First Nations” gathering by white Christian manoeuverers. But the Comanche story of Palo Duro does not involved any other tribes. It was an effort of Col. Ranald McKenzie to coerce the last of the free Comanches to surrender and come to Ft. Sill with the rest of the Comanches. The news story in the Comanche paper does not mention the involvement of any other tribes in that 1874 affair. And southwestern plains Indians don’t use the term “First Nations.” This is a hep, Canadian liberal term for all indigenous people of the Americas. It’s part of that anti-white racist approach to Indians, which deems all indigenous people of the Americas equal to the grandeur of the American Indian, on a par with the honor of the Comanche. Personally, I’ll have none of it. No one belongs with the Comanche. And no other people should ever be associated with the American Indian. This is ethnic robbery. It is the denigration of Indian honor, and something liberals and Democrats continually seek, despite their professions of apology and forgiveness. Liberal “equality” degrades the American Indian, every time, and particularly the Comanche.

The fact is, most Indians, certainly the Indian leaders, among the southern plains tribes, are all Christian. It is a reservation tradition. Christianity is valued among Indians. I know that our Comanche people were at the April impropriety simply because they are Christian, and they would never work against other Christians–especially when those Texas Christians were trying to manifest some sort of Christian faith and principle toward other Christians whom they believe were terribly wronged. (Of course, Comanche certainly weren’t Christian at the time these “wrongs” were committed.) This is all perfectly appropriate, for the sake of Christian love and brotherhood.

But, it is inevitably superficial and meaningless. It is no more than a gesture. There is no righting of wrongs, even if the wrongs are positively identifiable–which, in this case, they are not. A cultural car wreck, such as the encounter of the white man with the Indian, is not something that any post-accident governmental ‘insurance’ policy can remedy. The crooked cannot be made straight. The old Indian way of life is gone forever.

What happened at the April impropriety at Palo Duro was simply a staged expression of the fact that people are ineffably awed by the ironies of history. Christian people feel compelled to address wrong, in a Christian way. It is a peculiar aspect of modern Christianity to venture into historical wrongs, however, and to feel an obligation to make today some marked expression about history. I say, however, that Christianity is best served on a personal basis, in the present, and not a national basis, not regarding irredeemable history. Jesus did say, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). I don’t know that national, political, or racial expression of right and wrong, apology and forgiveness, reparation and justice, are anything effective or useful except as the expression of good will. That can never be a bad thing to do, in and of itself.

I think that the Comanches who were at Palo Duro in April were there because they were invited, because they were acknowledged in an unusual way, and because, above all, they felt obligated to show respect to other Christians. This was for the Texas Christians, not really for the Comanches.

However, I say, again, because this present Comanche administration was willing to accept apology from white Texas Christians on bended knee, before the God of heaven, in the name of Christ, Comanches must now make a call to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and arrange for a public ceremony in Mexico, in say, Zecatecas, south of Coahuila; Comanches, the very ones present in Palo Duro in April, must publicly bow, on camera, before the Mexican government and the Mexican people, and on bended knee offer apology and beg for forgiveness for every Mexican the Comanches plundered, butchered, and raped.

This is the path created by April impropriety, and it must be followed.

This Palo Duro Christian gesture was on the front page of Comanche Nation News. Though I don’t see that it was advertised, or that all Comanche people were invited, it is presented to us as something our people were presumed to have approved. I for one would not have approved on any wise. As a Comanche, I can think of nothing more denigrated and distorting to the psyche than to sanction the dramtic public gesture of apology from those who do not owe us an apology! I know that our people, our elders, are all Christian. I know that they may see this April impropriety as a wonderful, healing event. As I said, they were there because they are honoring the Christian fellowship. This is of course a righteous thing. (Perhaps they are more righteous than I.)

I’m saying that, if the Comanche people honor this April event, then the Comanche people must apologize to Mexico. That’s the truth. And Comanche people must first apologize to the Apache!

This is the logical extention of the April impropriety at Palo Duro. Will Comanche people do this? Will the elders initiate such a dramatic gesture? They accepted such a gesture. Are they not obligated to make the same?

Personally, I say no one owes an apology to the Comanche. That insults our pride and honor. If we accept any such apology, then we owe apology to those whom we wronged. Then we’re not exactly Comanche anymore.

Michigan State University Professor of Mechanical
Engineering, Indrek S. Wichman. According to the YAF
Watch, Wichman advises a campus group, the Young
Americans for Freedom, which is a SPLC-designated “hate”
group. Such dsignations really mean the targeted group
is an American patriot group.

Muslims confined to their own nations. Is the thought so outrageous? Nothing is more personal, of course, than race, religion, and sex (gender). Any negative attitude of one person toward another on the basis of these human elements is particularly powerful. Certainly in the matter of race and gender, and often religion, we are born what we are. We really have no say about where and when we are born, or to whom. Therefore, negative attitudes or aversions toward what we are by birth seem especially hurtful.

But there is such a thing as a nation. There are human social instincts and intutions, as well as genetics, which keep the human race in divisions. I for one believe nationhood–the manifestation of basic group divisions, is ordained by the Creator (Deuteronomy 32:7-9; cf. Genesis 11:8-9). Be that as it may, the plain fact is, the people’s preference for their own kind is what crumbles empires. People don’t really like multicultural conglomerates, in the end. The temporary fascination with ‘globalism’ is found only in the generations of historically ignorant populations.

But then, what about the Christian religion, which evangelized the world with new social values? The Christian religion was not a nationalist movement, nor was it designed to aggressively effect national governments. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus said (John 18:36.) When the term “Christian nation” is used, it can never mean more than a majority of a nation’s population wanting Christian values as normative. A true “Christian” government could only be called such if the term meant merely that the office holders simply happened to be Christian, not that they were coerce the Christian religion on the public.

It so happens, historically, that the races and ethnicities of the West (the world west of Palestine) took up Christian social values. The white race took up the cross as the hallmark of its culture. The remains of the Roman empire distilled into “Christian” nations. This was not, however, the express intent of the Christian religion. It just happened that way.

Islam is, however, the express intent of animosity and hostility toward all that differs from it. Beginning in 622 AD, the religion comprised a military assualt on the world, with the full and open intent of conquoring the world by military force. Perhaps this is, technically, no different that what the Christian nations had done before. The clear difference would be that Christ did not command His followers to conquer the world by military power. Mohammad did. Christ did not teach coercion. Mohammad did.

Nevertheless, if Christians nations wish Muslims to return to their own “Muslim” nations, it should be expected that the Muslims would want all Christians to leave their countries–that is, whatever Muslims nations have allowed Christians to exist in their countries. Many Christians, hundreds of thousands over the years, have indeed faced such explusions–and lethal persecutions, not only from Muslims, but from other non-Christian religious cultures. Why should Muslims expect to be welcomed anywhere, especially in a Christian nation? Why do Christian nations feel they must “tolerate” murderous Muslims?

Professor Indrek Wichman is from a white European Christian nation, apparently a northern such nation. (There is no biographical information for Wichman on the internet.) As a teacher at an American university, it would seem his views are objective. His remarks were noted by Americans who share his concern (like Robert Spencer) as well as Muslims who do not (like IslamOnline.net).

There is a certain basic reality in this matter which it is quite foolish to ignore. People of radically different values cannot live together peaceably. These conscious, “intellectual” differences, on top of the natural aversions based on race, language, culture, etc., cannot be expected to disappear, or to be worked through, or to be harmonized. Multiculturalism, as a social ideology, is a covert design to destroy a nation. It is Communism, in temporary disguise. It is pawned off by deluded liberals as “compassion,” “tolerance,” or even “freedom.” America is proffered as a showcase for this wondrous anomaly, and Americans are to be proud to host such idiocy. But, again, multiculturalism is a covert effort to destroy a nation.

America is a white, Christian nation. America is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation. As anything else, it will not stand. It may appear to operate at some Third World level of functionary dependency, but it will not be America. It will not be a bride, but a whore, in the world brothel of social inanities. That, of course, is the design of liberals and their alien, lying black African Communist traitor currently in the White House, their Third World Negro mascot.

Here’s a YouTube clip of Nick Griffin speaking at MSU. Note the hysterical liberal students–those passionate proponents of “free speech.” Later, during Griffin’s speech, the students pulled the fire alarm. This is the liberal version of “tolerance.” Here is another YouTube clip of the same situation. Prof. Wichman speaks from the audience. The fire alarm makes it almost impossible to hear the conversation.

There is no verse, Old or New Testament, which directly addresses what it today understood to be the intentional killing of an unborn child. Such a circumstance apparently was not part of human existence. However, the ancient world had direct ways of dealing with unwanted infants. In the Ancient Near East, child sacrifice (by fire, usually) to the gods was very common. Molech, the “abomination” of the Moabites, was a favorite deity who called babes to the flames. The ancient Greeks and Romans weren’t so dramatic about it, but simply left an unwanted infant on the road side, for the wild dogs to quickly consume. But neither of these were what we would call abortion. Both kinds of child-ridding were a kind of population control, as modern scholars theorize; but neither involved the intentional killing of an unborn child.

In the Torah (The Law), or the Pentateuch, the first five books of Moses, we find only three verses that could be associated with at least the relationship between mother and infant. Yet, these pertain to animals, not human beings.

The first of these is Exodus 23:19, in the context of numerous precepts in the observance of offerings brought before the Lord. It appears somewhat isolated, as do several of the other precepts. They come in the narrative, not in a neat and tidy list, but seemingly random, at least in prima facie.

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

This is the last command in a series of laws concerning offerings.

Then again, in Exodus 34:26, we find exactly the same command:

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

As a matter of fact, the entire verse is identical to 23:19. The verse before it (34:25) is nearly the exact repeat of Exodus 23:18. And so this peculiar verse stands out, in and of itself, as well as by the fact that it is repeated.

Though Jewish people regard this law as the basis for the tradition of not drinking milk (or eating cheese) when you’re eating meat, Rabbi Alvin Berkin once told me that the verse bespeaks a natural compassion. Never mind the fact that meat takes the longest of all foods to digest, and that mixing milk with it is going to cause a ‘curdling’ in the stomach; the deeper meaning of the text implies that to cook a baby goat in the milk of its own mother is just plain cruel, and shows a careless disregard for the order of nature.

Why would this law be written, twice? Circumstances of ancient or non-technical life would suggest that it was convenient to boil the meat in the mother’s milk. Goat’s milk was readily available, and re-suppliable, a lot more so than fresh water.

And yet, the command says not to be so unmindful of the natural, tender relationship between the mother and the offspring. Don’t cook the kid in its own mother’s milk. Maybe use another mother goat’s milk, but not the one whose kid you are about to eat. (That reasoning would weaken the health argument about digestion, however.)

There is another scripture, Deuteronomy 22:6,7, about a hen and her eggs or chicks. This one is perhaps more dramatic, considering the promise connected with the command.

If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.

Presumably, this command would address all species of fowl, domestic or wild. And again, it address the female and her young.

This verse bespeaks not so much any obvious (or even suggested) health issues pertaining to diet, but simply the life of the mother. One does not take the mother hen with the eggs, or the chicks. Why? Presumably because she can lay more eggs, and have more young. Presumably because it would, again, be a cruel thing to destroy her life along with the life of her offspring. But, the real directive is found in the promise: “that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.” This is a most serious matter. Something is unspeakably wrong with destroying that mother hen along with her young. You can eat the eggs, or raise the chicks, if you want. But don’t kill the hen.

Also, it is clear that this “dam,” this female bird, is not a domestic bird. It was happened upon in the country, by the way side, or some other non-cultivated circumstance. This element of the scripture makes the lesson even more curious.

I am not versed in rabbinical lore, but I will consult our BadEagle.com resident rabbi, Ari Kahn, about this. I have a Jewish literature collection in my library, but, this is a detail which no indeces I posses are forthcoming of terms.

For now, it seems to me that the tenor of these three scriptures, the repeated Exodus text, and the Deuteronomy text, strongly suggests a special value in the life of the mother. Even though the cases involve animal life, still, the relationship between the mother and offspring is clearly the essence of the matter, and the basis for the lesson. While I certainly cannot say these verses pertain to human abortion, I will go so far as to say that when delivering a baby, if it is a choice between the life of the infant and the life of the mother, the mother should probably take precedence. A living mother can perhaps have more children. She must be given that opportunity.

I once heard Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn say that, as a physician who has delivered many babies, only twice in his career was he ever faced with that dilemma of abortion. He opted to save the mother’s life. Otherwise, he is against abotion on principle of the sanctity of life. I think Dr. Coburn is within the Biblical principle on that, if there is a principle, if it can possibly be suggested by these Torah scriptures.

I know this: in the old days, Comanches certainly had to address the issue. Hunger and starvation were very real threats. There were lean times, when a decision was sometimes necessary. If it was known that the child would not or could not be provided for, the mother could be subjected to a calculated injury that would cause a still birth. This is known to have happened. It is said that a large stone was used to strike the mother’s abdomen, thus killing the child in the womb. That’s abortion, for sure. But, only liberals would see any compassion in preventing a miserable, suffering life from happening.

It was especially painful to write this piece. However, there is something wondrously tender, in the heart, suggested by those ancient Torah texts. “…that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.” That’s the clincher. Something’s really wrong, and something’s really right. But what? And why?

The people of Kyrgyzstan are not well known in the world. The entire southern region of the former Soviet Union is unfamiliar to most of the modern world. It is an under-developed area, but the population is intense. The region lies within the famous “10/40 window,” the most populated area of the world. (It is the land between the 10th and 40th Latitude.) It practically the epicenter of the Third World, and all ills that terms implies.

Such a circumstance invites tyrannical competitors, like Communists and Islamists. In recent decades, the mineral and energy resources (like oil and natural gas) in the central Asian region have invited western enconomic competitors as well.

These kinds of outside pressures put tremendous pressure on the people Kyrgyzstan. The current crisis with the Uzbeks that live in Kyrgyzstan’s borders reflects the lower elements, namely, the heroin traffic from Afghanistan–the heroin dealer of the world.

Some of the best inside information on areas like Kyrgyzstan come from Christian missionary sources. There isn’t much about Kyrgyzstan, but, a small piece appeared recently in a Seventh-day Adventist report called FrontlineEdition, part of Adventist Global Mission. Unaccountably, however, the news bit is titled “Kazakhstan,” which is the country on the northern border of Kyrgyzstan. In any case, the piece is about a missionary in Kyrgyzstan.

A man named Bakyt works exclusively for Kyrgyz people, in the northernmost region of Kyrgyzstan (bordering Kazakhstan). He has tried, unsuccessfully to develop a congregation among the people. (Adventist Christians have been known only among the Russians living in Kyrgyzstan–which make up a small minority of the country.) Bakyt is a Kyrgyz himself, and knew the nature of his own people. He finally decided to abandon the outsider methods he was obliged to follow in his personal campaign for Adventist Christianity. He dispensed with the Russian-style worship service for church, and decided to let the Kyrgyz be Kyrgyz.

They like sitting on the ground, or the floor, American Indian-style.

Nick Ramus, Blackfeet Indian, played Chief Red Cloud
in the movie, “Son of the Morning Star” (1991).

Remember how, in the movie “Son of the Morning Star (1991),” Chief Red Cloud was brought before President (General) Ulysses Grant? The great Sioux chief was invided to take a grand chair, and to sit and talk with the president of the United States. The Indian didn’t know what a chair was. He didn’t like it, and sat on the floor, legs crossed, in the grand old Indian way. From there, he talked to the president of the United States.

Within two months, Bakyt held an evangelistic series, and more than 60 people attended, on the ground.

This kind of thing makes an enormous difference. People have to be themselves. There’s nothing intrinsically “Christian” about Western-style worship services. There’s nothing particularly heathen and uncouth about sitting on the ground, or on the floor, like an Indian.

The point here is people have their ways. The Kyrgyz people have theirs. Indians have theirs. Nations have their customs. Sometimes these customs are connected directly to religious dicta, sometimes they are not. Presently, the indigenous customs, religious or otherwise, of the Kyrgyz people, are hardly known.

We have noted in the news that the people of this central Asian region are fond of brightly colored clothing. These people are certainly not new-comers in the world. They have their culture.

A Kyrgyz girl in traditional attire offers tourists snacks near Ysyk Kol lake, Kyrgyzstan, May 18, 2006. [© AP Images]

News reporters, government agents, insurrectionists, and Christian missionaries all have their inside stories. I believe the missionaries are the most to be trusted, yet, their stories seldom ever make headline news. Often, Christians are anxious to leave their home countries because of persecution. Kyrgyzstan, with a population of over 5 million, (nearly 70% Kyrgyz), is said to be 80% Muslim. However, the government is secular “republic” Islam is not the governing force. Kyrgyz has developed a positive relationship with the United States, mainly through an air base critically important to the US and NATO. The current government wants an upright relationship, unlike the previous government, which robbed the people of the profits due, so it is said.

The United States, and the ususal suspects, of course, are demanding that Kyrgyz lay off the pressure on the Uzbeks that live in Kyrgyrz. This is frightfully reminiscent of the way in which Serbia was treated by the same forces, when Serbia moved to protect its own property and people from the invading, uprising, usurpist Albanian Muslims. Remember Kosovo! That was mostly about heroin, too. Heroin is a Muslim tool, a cutting edge of action.

Just exactly how the Kyrgyz are going to solve their Uzbek problem, and their Afghan heroin problem, remains to be seen. In the mean time, the UN, and yes, the United States, has no business telling ethnic peoples what to do about their own ethnic problems. Letting Mexico take over southwestern United States is not an example that other nations are interested in following. Most nations are like American Indian nations. They want their own. They are not the great White Wimps of Washington, led by an alien, lying black African Communist Muslim.

This is a psychological theory I presented in Persian Heritage Magazine, in the Fall 1999 issue, Vol. 4, No.13, pp. 26-28. (The online version of the magazine has undergone major renovations recently, and not all the archives have been made available yet.) The title of my article was “The Persian World Personality: A Psycholoigcal Archetype.”

These personalities are like psychological, behavioral archetypes. They represent the three basic states of consciousness possible in the human condition. Here is an order of consideration which might be useful in understanding human nature.

The Arab, the most ubiquitous, is the most basic. The Arab personality is the perfect cohabitation of fear and aggression. It reacts to itself. It comprises fear of the Jew, and the assertion of superiority, not only to the Jew, but to all other races. The Arab personality is desperate for superiority. It must achieve superiority–by any means. Words are first, then actions. It is characterized by impatience, argumentativeness, arrogance, violence, and cruelty. It is essentially a mindless reaction to its own fear. It is a most private writhing, manifested in offense to all other people. It seeks to overcome its fear by enslaving or lording over others. That is its natural way. That is its approach to reality–a jaded reaction to itself. There is no objectivity, no self-reflection, or moral evaluation.

The Persian personality is characterized by explicit objectivity. The Persian is prone to management, therefore. The Persian can sense powers from beneath as well as from above, and such a dual perception creates in the Persian a natural sense of balance, constant arranging and rearranging of circumstances. The Persian always seeks solution, and the creative management of diverse perspectives and intensely contrasting elements. The Persian “rule” seeks what is most workable for all involved, or what is best for all.

The Jewish mind is generally incomprehensible to others. The non-Jew can grasp only parts of the Jewish mind, now and then, and never the total content. The Jewish mind pertains to that mystery of the divine which all seek, but simply do not have the capacity to sustain. Partial glimpses, flashes, and moments of glory–this is all to which the non-Jewish mind can apsire. The Jewish mind is alone, and must be left alone.

And so, with these three personality types, we can immediately see that each individual human mind seems to have all three dimensions present. Most of the time, we’re all Arab. That is the natural way, the easy way, but the constantly frustrating, angering, and troubling way. It is miserable. That’s where most of us are, most of the time.

Obviously, we can’t be Jewish. We’re not Jewish. We can occasionally sense mystery, true mystery. We can once in a while really feel the glory of the divine. We know it’s there. We really have no doubt. But, we can’t dwell there. We don’t really have the gears to go there. It is almost by accident that we encounter such a realm, like discovering hid treasure in a field, as it were.

So, that leaves the Persian state–objectivity. For the most part, this is all humanity can hope for. If we can pull ourselves out of the Arab writhing, and step outside our perpetual contests of one-upmanship, we might be able grasp solutions to problems. The Arab personality state, and its habituation in strife and vanity, is inured to its own misery. It rarely rises above itself. It is the epitome of vice. Education might seem a method of uplifting the Arab personality, but, too many real Arabs out there prove this a false hope. The objectivity of the Persian personality is not achieved through education, but rather training of character. Real Persians do seem to have a knack for objectivity, but, it is a code in their genetic reservoire, more than an accumulative, collective resource. It isn’t about IQ or information. It is about a consciousness, and a character.

IQ is a fairly wortheless item in and of itself. In fact, it tends to be destructive, as in the case of Bill Clinton. He was never more than an Arab. Barry “Obama” Soetoro is without IQ. He he pure Arab, as are most of his kind on his home continent. The black African is Arab, and never attains to the slightest degree of the Persian personality. Most of the world is Arab. The white race, however, has sustained the Persian state for perhaps two millennia. The Persian personality has definitely found its way into the genetic coding of the white race, and this, we quickly add, is the result of the practice (or at least the attempted contemplation) of Christianity.

But now, Christianity is a sneaky form of Judaism, really; so, the little redemption in the world that we do find is brought to us through a touch of the Jew.

So, the world is a kind of alchemical alembic in which humanity blindly seeks a higher state. The base elements are Arab; the hope of improvement is Persian; the power is Jewish. Apparently, in the individual mind of every human being, the process occurs. We all seek the gold. Each person finds himself writhing like an Arab, striving for a Persian improvement, with occasional visions of the divine, occasional moments of Jewishness.

Actual Arabs, actual Persians (perticularly those who have outgrown Islam–the Arab infection), and actual Jews, all represent very real, visceral states of consciousness in the human personality. And understanding of the self, and of the world, is refined through consideration of these archetypes, or “stereotypes” if you please.

Considering even the recent extrava-Gaza and the attempted secret invasion of Israel by Islamic terrorists, this tri-part theory of the human personality is enlightening. The mystery of anti-Semitism, the ability or disability to see reality as a Persian, and the blind mania of the Arab, are all in play as we consider the situation. One might evaluate his own state of mind, Arab, Persian, or Jewish, as he considers the news.