Woe unto thee, O land, when thy king is a child. Ecclesiastes 10:16
The 1984 film, The Killing Fields (Roland Joffe) brings out an aspect of the Pol Pot reign of terror that is often overlooked, even in such scholarly reports as Jean-Louis Margolin's "Cambodia: A Country of Disconcerting Crimes," in The Black Book of Communism, ed. Mark Kramer (Harvard: 1999). The infamous Khmer Rouge was a gang of young people.
Margolin says Pol Pot tried to establish Communism "in one fell swoop, without the long transitional period" that characterized the Marxist method through "democracy." Margolin says, "Money was abolished in a week, total collectivization was achieved in less than two years; social distinctions were suppressed by the elimination of entire classes of property owners, intellectuals, and businessmen, and the ancient antagonism between urban and rural areas was solved by emptying the cities in a single week." (p.577)
from The Killing Fields
Yet, who were the implementers, the enforcers, the executioners? Hordes of mean, mindless teen-agers, naturally impatient of parental/adult control, and given over wholly to heartless authority! How ironic. They surrendered the natural authority of parents for the unnatural authority of strangers--in the guise of government. The Khmer Rouge was the result of tapping into the innate rebellion in youth, and sanctifying it with 'cause.'
At Phnom Penh Killing Fields
The only restraint they knew was the government's disciplined order to disregard respect for adults. This national gang of youth enforcers apparently delighted in controlling adults! What a terrifying prospect. They were taught that their natural resentment of parental control was to be focused and channeled into Big Brother's paths, which gave them total freedom to despise adults.
It is true that all revolutions are carried through by the youth of the society. Youth has the energy, the daring, and the blood. But the Khmer Rouge experiement, bragged about by it's leaders as "unique," resulting in the death (by slavery, prison, famine, disease, or execution) of at least 2 million Cambodians, was wholly dependent on youth.
Children were martialized. Children spied on families, villagers, reporting any infractions. The children knew they had power, and young as they were, they gloried in it. Evil is a natural high in the human heart, never mind the depression following. Vice is just that: vice.
The religion, indigenous or Buddhist, was insufficient to offer restraint to the unleashed wickedness of children, whose minds were captivated early with the official fostering of hatred toward parents and adults.
Something similar is going on here in America, right under our noses. In Cuffing the Kids, (an FPM article) I cite many examples of children being arrested and cuffed by police--even in kindergarten. (Alex Jones lists many more examples.) Why is this happening? The children have not been taught to respect adults. They have no fear of them, only anger and frustration towards them. Through liberalism's official permissiveness in the educational system, the children have never learned self-control, and those adults in charge of them have no ability to administer discipline. The child resents this, intuitively.
The lesson: there's more than one way to skin a cat. The indocrination of Communism comes in more than one form. Legally enforced permissiveness is as effective as governmental tyranny. Teachers have their hands tied, and the child rules the class. The child controls the events of the day. Enter: police.
Out in the street, gangs are at the point of disrupting the whole American society. Already, we see the results of organized, Leftist support of insuborndination. Enter: police.
The Left encouraged disrespect, hatred, and violence. The pie-throwing at conservative speakers, as Horowitz says, is not a joke. It is symptomatic. I've encountered the same kind of disrespect at my college speeches, by youth following the example of adults. Basic cordiality, basic respect, is absent. Civility is condemned as weakness, and targeted for assault.
Youth, what kind of example do we set for them? Disputation and debate are treasured in American society, yes, but, disrespect? That is anti-civilization, in any society. This is the Left: disrespect. Youth and children of our nation are already, to a frightening extent, under the control of the Left. This is without mention of the word "Communism."
So soon we forget. We're duped by Communism's new wording, which aggrandizes "equality," but means a child has equal authority as the adult; which lauds "justice," but meaens perpetual discontent and the inciting of riots; which prizes "freedom," but means a unspeakably cruel tyranny upon all who oppose Communism's inhuman, godless values.
Children are the cutting edge target of Communism. They are growing up with usurped words, knowing not that they are very "useful idiots." They have a penchant for violence--toward adults.
It wasn't her body that was exposed, but her race, or, shall we say, her 'real' race. Korean actress and producer Lee Yu Jin is down and out in South Korea. Why? The word is out: she's half American. She's a mixed race. Her white father was an American GI. She's 5'9", and was always suspect because of her height.
"People ask why didn't I come out earlier and why this is such a big deal, " the 27-year-old said. "It wouldn't be anywhere else, but Korea is still a closed society where people like to talk about the purity of the race."
Lee Yu Jin isn't alone in her plight, either. There's the popular singer "Sonya," television host Jennifer Yung Wisner, and basketball coach Kim Dong Dwang. Bi-racial persons are considered a downer, in a place like South Korea (to say nothing of Nort Korea).
Lee Yu Jin (right) from the 2002 film, "Winter Sonata."
Janet Mintzer, president of Pearl S. Buck International, says, "My impression is that there is more discrimination against Amerasians in South Korea than anywhere else in Asia and that it has not improved significantly." PSBI, a Pennsylvania-based foundation, is credited with coining the term "Amerasian," and works with the biracial children in not only South Korea, but also the Philippines and Vietnam, among other Asian countries in which the U.S. military has had a presence.
So it seems that American "democracy" is actually a code word for intermarriage, multiculturalism, and the dissolution of any distinctions. Never mind the GIs and the predicaments they've caused, Mintzer's group certainly represents the Communist use of the term, "democracy," which Communism is very astute and aggressive to use. (Remember it was the great Students for a Democratic Society, SDS, which spawned the infamous anti-America terrorist group, the Weathermen, in the late '60's.)
In other words, if South Korea claims to be a democracy, it should promote inter-racial marriage, multiculturalism, and "equality" of all things human. There must be no distinctions, save for the wealthy tyrants who run the Communist regime. For Communism, "democracy" is the open door to dictatorship.
But never mind about that a minute. Lee Yu Jin has an important role in the recent Korean horror film, "Bunshinsaba" (Ouiji Board), directed by Byeong-ki Ahn (March, 2005). In a scathing review, Yu Jin comes out as "the saving grace" in the otherwise run-of-the-mill grade "c" Asian horror film. "Her big expressive eyes and soulful looks" are not something we normally expect from the Oriental face, right? So her bi-racial 'condition' is what makes her a hit?
So let's ask the question: is love of race, love of culture, love of country, all to be considered immoral now? Has the Communist ideology taken over the whole world? Is any thought of race to be hopelessly consigned to the Nazis? Is Communism then anti-everything that a human being is? Is there to be no escape from the accusation of being a Nazi?
I say, love of race, ethnicity, culture, minus the maniacal, satanic vision of Adolf Hitler, is the only saving grace of the world. Without it, in some multiculturalist, globalist world without boundaries, the world will simply become an emasculated, mass wimp, under the control of a few mega-wealthy tyrants.
There is a reason for differences. This is to keep the human race separated into smaller groups.
Love of race is the only 'saving grace' left in the world, and the Communist, multinationalists, and globalists are desperate to rub out all natural differences. They are anti-race, anti-language, anti-culture, and anti-God, Who in fact created these differences, according to the old Hebrew version of the world (Gen. 11). The Leftists anti-Semitic Jews of the world can say, "We've come a long way, baby!" but it's a long way in the wrong direction, seems to me. Man always wants to separate that which God has brought together, as in marriage/divorce, and to bring together that which God has separated, as in language, culture, and race.
Mixed raced people can't help what they are. Their's is no fault. But there is no need to repeat the same, or to advocate more, or to idolize such a condition by perpetuating it. When you realize you're on a wrong path, even if you didn't put yourself on it, the only dignified thing to do is to get back on the right path.
The need in the world today is love of one's own people, without hatred for another's. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is both prescriptive and proscriptive. You can't love your neighbor unless you love yourself.
Japan is apologizing again. Some four months early, before the 59th Anniversary of Japan's surrender to the United States at the end of WWII, Japanese leaders are on the PC offensive again, apologizing for wartime attrocities and crimes Japan committed during the war.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi waves upon his
arrival at the Asia-Africa Summit in Jakarta Friday, April 22, 2005.
Leaders from Asia and Africa were gathered in Indonesia to discuss
ways to boost economic and security ties, though a row between
Asian giants China and Japan threatened to overshadow the summit.
(AP Photo/Suzanne Plunkett)
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi spoke at a summit of Asian and African leaders in Jakarta (Indonesia) just today, Friday, April 22, expressing deep remorse for Japans behavior in the past. Of course, just hours before that, back in Tokyo, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi apologized, a Cabinet minister and more than 80 Japanese lawmakers made a controversial visit to a Tokyo shrine dedicated to Japan's war dead. Koizumi has been on that same political road since he took office in April of 2001.
Junichiro Koizumi (left) follows chief Shinto
preist in Tokyo January, 2004.(AP photo)
I was impressed, at first, when Koizumi apologized. I wrote about it in April, 2003. The Japanese are an extremely proud and powerful people. An apology from the national leader I thought was extraordinary, and carried unspeakable honor. But now, it seems that it's all a facade. After all, true warriors never apologize, and never solicit or accept apologies. The Japanese are a warrior race. Therefore, all this apologizing is nothing more than political correctness on an international level.
To think, China's ambassador to South Korea, Li Bin, said: "Of course, words are important. But I believe actions are more important." China, like the NAACP, is essentially demanding reparations. Yet, China's attrocities on her own people have been worse that anything for which she accuses Japan. All the Asian countries are guilty of major hypocrisy on this point. All those communist countires committed ineffable horror on their own people, like Pol Pot's 'reign of terror' in Cambodia, in which he murdered over 2 million of his own countrymen. And they want Japan to apologize for war crimes!
Demonstrators hold signs during a protest in Tokyo April 22, 2005,
to call on the public to put pressure on the Japanese government
to apologize to China for its wartime aggression and on the controversy
over Japanese history textbooks. Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
apologized on Friday for Japan's wartime atrocities and said he would meet
Chinese President Hu Jintao in a bid to repair ties that are at their worst
in over three decades. REUTERS/Toru Hanai
Where there is greatness, there is great error. The demand for apology is indeed great error, but it does not rise from greatness, but weakness. That Japan should apologize, nationally, is an ineffective political manoeuver, and brings denigration to the world. Yielding to reparations distorts the integrity of history, insults the sacrifices and achievements of war, and obfuscates present tense reality. To hold the present generations reponsible for the errors past generations is sophomoric ideology, and wreaks perpetual havoc on society. It incites discontent and revolution, and functions as the enemy of peace.
Any apology, if meaningful, is made once, and only once, and not from a position of policital expediency or weakness, but strength. Any continual demand for apology exemplifies weakness itself, and represents a pestilential moral manipulation.
Japan is doing no service to the world in all this formal apologizing. Giving in to the demands of false offense, manipulative intrique, and general moral fraud, brings only more weakness into the world. Strength, for all its faults, is the only saving grace in national relations. Otherwise, tyranny rules, through the degrading "equality" of Communism. No one can excell, no once can achieve. All must be equal. And this is a lie. It's just a deceptive way a few leaders can gain the most power.
And apologies are all about words. This is the proper realm of the Left. Word power. Words are easy to control. Control words first, then you have power, then you can take away the public's defense, their guns, and their freedoms. Apologies are the harbingers of the dictatorship of the weak and unworthy. Apologies are the precursor of tyranny.
It's time to take the Nazi out of the German.
Or so it would seem. Arnold Schwarzenegger is apparently only the beginning. With Josef Razinger elected the new pope, it may be that the world will see a rise of German talent and expertise in leadership that will not only excell that of the last century, but also be wholly distinct from the crippling errors of the National Socialist Party of Adolf Hitler.
Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger of Germany,
waves from a balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican
after being elected by the conclave of cardinals, April 19,
2005. German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the strict defender
of Catholic orthodoxy for the past 23 years.
REUTERS/Max Rossi
When Schwarzenegger (an Austrian--but then, so was Hitler) announced his bid for the gubernatorial office of California, I predicted he would win, and why. I hadn't followed the recent papal election closely enough to know of the German cardinal, Josef Ratzinger, but I would have predicted the same outcome for him.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor
of California
This is an age of racial anxiety. Particularly in Europe, and in America, there are people who fear for the survial of their ethnicity and culture. I speak chiefly of white people. The mass immigration of non-white people from the Third World deeply troubles many people. I predicted Schwarzenegger would win in California because of the Mexican threat to basic White Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture. I believe a Jungian-type Collective Unonscious in Europe and America intuitively looks to German people for protection and guidance in matters of cultural and ethnic preservation. It may not be articulated politically, or spoken outright, but it is a profound motivation operative in the white world.
Part of Hitler's psychological success, as perceived at least, was based on fear, fear of losing one's race and culture to foreigners. This is a distinct fear in America today.
And considering the fact that the conclave of cardinals was dominated by Latin representatives, one must conclude that even they look to German leadership. Truly, the darker races have some strange sense of inferiority before the great Germans. There is no shame in this, either. These are uncertain times, and a strong hand is needed. I think it is abundantly clear that the German leaders have received the approval of the world. Now is their opportunity to display their talent, without the satanic mania of Adolf Hitler. They are now free to show their best side. The world has turned to them for hope and security.
Of course, don't try to tell this to Tammy Bruce. I made that distinct error yesterday on her radio show. She had to acknowledge a certain rise in German leadership, in Schwarzenegger and Ratzinger, but she was unwilling to recognize any racial anxiety as a factor. "Germans are just great people. Wonderful people." She could not bear a discussion of the racial issue.
Bruce is still struggling with femminism, of course, and now has shown aversion to the subject of race. She's still refining her theories of conservatism. She probably represents many people, who are coming out of their own delusions, but still fearful of addressing some of the most obvious issues before them. So, time will tell.
I must say, on the BadEagle forums, we have a German participant whose understanding of Germany, German people, and German history, excells any found in text books. "Countess Nora," we call her. To be a German, without being accused of being a Nazi, is a marvelous challenge. To be a German patriot, proud of being German, yet free of Nazi associations, is a distinct quest. We have had many exquisit discussions on our German Forum. The stereotypes of the Nazi are profound, because they are based on natural fears and prejudice. All people have such feelings. How to turn this anxiety into productive social enterprise, of benefit to all, is what we hope to see in the new rise in international German leadership. To be strong, to be protective, to be productive, without destroying other people, without coercion, without devastation, is the hope of the world.
So do it right this time, ye conniving, conquering krauts! The world still loves you, at heart. In fact we're counting on you! Maybe this new world vote will help you straighten out some of your interior problems, too. Go for it. Ueber Alles!
April 19, 2005, Oklahoma City remembers once again, for the tenth year, the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in downtown OKC, April 19, 1995, where 168 innocent people were killed. Once again, the orchestrated public mourning transpires. There is a beautiful memorial on the grounds where the people died. Once again, the professional grieving process is set in motion, and the media stories faithfully tell all--except the story of the criminal investigation, except obstruction of justice by federal and state officials. They've tried to say it was just Timothy McVeigh and his truck bomb that did it all. End of story. But, the evidence is quite to the contrary. No one has called the victims "little Eichmanns," but lots of people have called the official story a fraud.
Former Oklahoma State legislator, House Representative Charles Key published a heavy report, under The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. It's called Final Report (2001). It is an enormous record of 550 pages, detailing evidence, initial reports, and investigations associated with the incident. Just as an example, it is quite clear that the truck bomb alone could not have caused the damage that occurred. Professional engineers and explosives experts deny the solo truck bomb theory. General Benton K. Partin believes that "precise, small, high-velocity charges at critical locations weakened the building prior to the truck bomb explosion." These 'crack' explosives, like C4, were detected by at least two audio recordings made outside the building, before the truck bomb went off. Also, at least six survivors of the blast testified that they felt the building shake, as in an earthquake, before the truck blast occurred. Critical structural beams inside the building were obviously 'cracked' first, so that they would crumble when the truck bomb went off.
General Benton K. Partin
But, no, some Oklahomans, and the media, don't want to commemorate the cover-up. We want to mourn, to grieve, as if that's the right thing to do. Lamentation, luxuriating in being victims, is more righteous than knowing what the truth is. It is easier to mourn than to investigate.
Charles Key offered a stunning, daring, devastinging report, but it has not resulted in any criminal investigations for obstruction of justice. It has not resulted in any arrests, any convictions, or any too lasting implications. There were just too many high-level government officials involved.
Former OK House Rep. Charles Key
Yes, President Clinton was here in OKC, to say the right thing, to comfort the people. On April 19, 1995, Clinton had advised Governor Frank Keating that it was a very sophisticated group who had committed the bombing. It had to have been done by explosives experts. Nice move, to make the unexpected focus on McVeigh seem wonderfully true and final. Thinking Oklahomans are simply not in the mood to believe. We know this is a perpetual mess, and that we have been snowed. We know there is nothing we can do about it.
But this is one case where I prefer anger to grief, and outrage to mourning. Something wrong happened. We are not to be satisfied with sorrow. We need justice.
Tonight, April 14th, Larry King grappled with the age old question, What happens after we die? He invited guest 'authorities' from a variety of perspectives: an athiest (female), a rabbi, a Roman Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, a Muslim, and another general spiritual advisor (female). (I do not recall a Buddhist, a Shinto priest, a Hindu, nor any animist, shaman, or sorcerer. This is curious in itself.)
Larry King
The question might better have been asked, What actual evidence is there that something happens other than what we see happen, the cessation of life and the decomposition of the body? In other words, why does man believe that something in addition happens at death, other than death? This is a persistent believe, in the history of humanity. What is the evidence for it? What is it based on?
From the professional testimonies given on such a program as Mr. King's, I don't know how anyone could have any hope. Juxtaposed as they were, the different believes seemed quite chaotic, confused, a completely disappointing. However, none of the views were surprising. The objective view, the evolutionary view, the scientific few, even the philosophical view, would be to ask why man persists in these beliefs. How do these beliefs function? What do they accomplish? Those are legitimate questions.
Perhaps the one consistent element in religions is the idea of an immortal soul, an intelligent entity capable of existence appart from the body, which in fact leaves the body at death. This idea seemed to run like a golden thread through all the religions (except the athiest 'religion.') This rather strange notion is reminiscent of a certain ancient Hebrew tale, in which an aversary said, "Ye shall not surely die. Ye shall be as gods." (Gen.3:4,5) A peculiar articulation of the thought, but it is the same thought. At death, our soul enters a higher order of existence.
Interestingly, the Hebrew story makes the question, What happens when you die?, central to the issue of how man fell from grace in the beginning. In other words, uncertainty over death was the basis for persuasion in to sin. This is an ominous account.
The philospher would ask, Why would the Jews ensconce such a thought in their Creation myth? The Jungian psychoanalyst would ask, What archetype is represented by such a line as the serpent's, given at such a incipient point in the story of man?
In the end, something was grotesque about the Larry King presentation, sincere and organized as it seemed to be on the surface. King wasn't trying to set anyone up, including his audience. He was simply asking the wrong question, to the wrong people, or so it seems.
"How can we know?" King asked. "I mean, we don't know know, do we?" The Protestant Christian said we know, because of Christ, etc., but he was basing that on the Bible. It wasn't 'empirical' evidence. Larry King was pushing for the empirical.
I have completed a book-length manuscript entitled, The State of the Dead. I examined all the perspectives of man on the phenomenon of death. The ancient Hebrew story is certainly the one unique account. The others all seem similar by comparison to the Hebrew story.
That three different Christian "authorities" would each have their version in itself is a bit embarrassing to the Christian faith. King was appropriate in that the subject of death is quite popular currently, with the death of Terry Schiavo, and then the Pope. But, if people are asking the question, and the Larry King show is any sample of what kind of answers they will hear, I am heart-broken for the world. The confusion is pitiful.
I pray for a publisher of my study, The State of the Dead. I have researched the matter, and my presentation is unique. I believe there is an acceptable answer to the question, satisfying the intellect, the heart, and the conscience. I just didn't hear that answer on Larry King Live.
In a stroke of international PC, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has offered Palestinian murderers the ultimate PC deal: now hundreds of Palestinian murderers have pledged to stop murdering, in exchange for getting a job! In other words, the reason they were murderers is because they didn't have job. You see? It was the government's fault. It was Israel's fault. It was the fault of whomever ends up giving them a job! All the murderes needed was a job!
A masked Palestinian Fatah supporter attends a rally in Al-Quds University in the
West Bank town of Abu Dis, April 12, 2005. More than 200 Palestinian militants have
pledged not to carry out acts of violence in exchange for jobs, in a first step toward
disarming gunmen wanted by Israel, a Palestinian official said on Tuesday.
(Mahfouz Abu Turk/Reuters)
So, what kind of job will they get? Who will pay them? "Under the plan, Al Aqsa gunmen will join the security services or be hired by Palestinian Authority ministries." So, that's like Los Angeles hiring Mexican gang members to serve on the LA police force. Okay. Sounds wonderful.
"Palestinian finance minister Salam Fayyad is in touch with the recruitment committee and would have to allocate the money needed for paying hundreds, if not thousands, more salaries. However, the public payroll is already bloated, a legacy of the Yasser Arafat era, and it is not clear where the additional funds would come from." California could always depend on the Federal government to pay the Mexicans, but, who's going to pay the Palestinians? Israel? The U.S.?
Guns for jobs. Oil for food. It's like AIDS for education. It all implies a denial of reality, like one thing is related to the other, in a false way. It implies a cause and effect relationship which does not exist.
This is the pith of Leftism. It is a breech of reality, held together with a word-based relationship which is actually false. Palestinian murderers were murderers because they didn't have jobs; the reason Hussein's Iraqis didn't have food was because the US (et al.) wouldn't let Hussein sell oil. People have AIDS because they haven't been instructed properly. In all events, the problem is caused by someone else, not the perpetrator.
This is the Ward Churchill line, as well: America earned the 9-11 attacks on the WTC. American innocents deserved to be murdered. All bad things happen, not because the person committing the crime is doing anything bad, but because his victims were guilty of provoking the crime, and deserved to have a crime committed against them.
In this Leftist fantasy world, no victim is innocent. That is, no white, Western, particularly American victim is innocent. All such deserve catastrophy.
This is a kind of intellectual autolysis, a self-destroying process of turning everything upside down. "Guns for jobs?" We could call it the "destruction for political power" program. Condemnation for authority. Curses for publicity. Great program here in the west. Churchill managed to fraudulently collect 100K a year for it.
The word "holocaust" belongs to the Jews. In our modern times, the term was first used in reference to the mass executions of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. The efforts of the Jews to document their stupendous calamity have excited the envy of the heathen. The remarkable records and studies the Jews have generated regarding every aspect of the holocaust have stimulated other minorities to give more attention to their own plights, historical and more recent. Other unwanted minorities have come to even use the word "holocaust" to identify their own social tragedies.
"Holocaust" (Greek: holokauston), however, refers to a religious sacrifice, a wholly consumed burnt offering. It is a most appropriate metaphor for the mass burnings of innocent Jews in the Nazi concentration camps. The metaphor is inappropriate and inapplicable to any other minority story.
Dispite the obvious improprieties and impossibilites, there are people who like to use the world holocaust to identify the American Indian story. Russell Thornton's American Indian Holocuast and Survival (1987) is an academic study of Indian population since 1492. Thornton doesn't really make a comparison between the Jews and American Indians other than in the title of the book. But people like Ward Churchill not only push the idea that there was and is an American Indian "holocaust," but actually try to demean or belittle the Jewish holocaust! This is error on all sides (something we've all come to expect from Ward Churchill). Such is the effect of extravagant indulgence, of theself-idolizing "I've been wronged" mentality.
Perhaps it would be helpful to list a few items of difference regarding the Jewish story and the American Indian story:
1) Indians were on our own land, and just happened to be in the way
of a new European world enterprise.
2) Indians fought like wildcats for several hundred years, and many,
many white people were slaughtered in the process.
3) Indians had no desire to integrate or assimilate, for we had our
own cultures, which we preferred. We had no desire to become
like the invader.
4) The US government made numerous treaties with Indian nations,
promising sanctuary, and also provision.
5) Indians like to carry the American flag at our social gatherings,
and dances. (Jews would never parade the Nazi flag.)
So, just with a few basic facts, it is quite clear that the Jewish Holocaust and the American Indian story are not propery compared, in any detail.
It is important to zealously guard suffering. Each has his own. To try and clump all the stories together is to degrade and demean all of them. This is the Leftist way, however. Someone like Ward Churchill does disservice to all, and displays that transcendent hypocrisy and inconsistency that is characteristic of the the "I've been wronged" crowd, whose only purpose is to avariciously horde all sympathy and justice in the human heart. "I been more wronged than you!" "I deserve more sympathy than you!"
And don't forget the clarion complaint of Clyde Bellecourt, Indians deserve more pity than a helpless dying woman (Terry Schiavo).
But there was only one holocaust: the Jewish holocaust. There are many tragedies, historical and on going. But there is only one story like the Jewish story. Only as we keep these things straight in our minds and hearts can we understand the truth about our own suffering and our own place in history.
I've already denounced racial conglomerates, like the National Museum of the American Indian. I've denounced the idea of Western hemispheric hording of non-white races in the Leftist racist attempt to unite all non-white people against the white race. I have denounced this NMAI attempt to redistribute American Indian honor on all indigenous people by including them all in the "American Indian" museum.
Now I must denounce the holocaust conglomerates, and the idea that there are multiple holocaust stories, and that everyone deserves the honor of that word, "holocuast."
It is very clear, in the case of Ward Churchill, that such holocaust conglomerates mean ill toward the Jews, and they mean only to usurp the word "holocaust" from the Jews, and to not only rip-off that 'honor,' but also to deny anything significant about it at the same time!
I thought it was outrageous when California's Peace and Freedom Party nominated Leonard Peltier as their candidate for President of the United States. I realized, of course, that it was only a political statement, crass and juvenile as it was.
The younger Leonard Peltier
But this kind of nonsense apparently has no end. Now the great Raelian movment has decided to make Ward Churchill an honorary priest! My, what desperate political organizations won't do for moment in media. Or worse, what insignificant, failed causes won't do to keep breathing.
The honorary Ward Churchill
Using an Indian image! That's all they're doing. The old AIMsters like Peltier are all breeds anyway, and Churchill's not even Indian. But they have the Indian name attached to their lives. Therefore, they are part of the Leftist's politically created Indian image of modern times. Therefore, they are up for use.
The prophet Rael leads a sex-oriented cult, concerned with all manner of sexual, bioethical, creationist theories. Why they would choose to "honor" Ward Churchill is not really that surprising, since, Churchill has associated with strange sexual revolutions in the past, such as the Weathermen, who required group homosexual acts as the final initiations into their community.
The 'prophet' Rael
That this is just the sum of the Leftist use of the American Indian image. First, make sure the "Indians" in question are that connected to their tribes, but that they're only good, violent media objects, like the AIMsters; second, they don't really even have to be Indian. Churchill, who seems loaded with "honorary" IDs, like an honorary doctorate, an honorary tribal membership, and now an honorary priest hood, is a perfect fluff image. A rat-like professional fraud, he fits perfectly into any strange and exotic cause or movement that needs some PR, or some new life.
It's important to realize just what kind of Indian image the Left has created, and how this reflects on Indian people. Murderers, sex perversion, and of course, the Clyde Bellecourt line: Indians deserve more pity than a helpless, dying woman. This is the Indian image of the Left. Aren't we proud?
Don Vito Corleone said to his son Michael, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." (from The Godfather, Part II)
Could this be the reason the Bush family continually keeps Bill Clinton in their intimate circles, and in high-profile roles? First President Bush gives Clinton a major role in the tsunami relief efforts; and now Clinton attends Pope John Paul's funeral, side by side with the Bushes.
Former US Presidents Bill Clinton (L) and George Bush (R) visit the Lampuuk
refugee camp in Aceh Besar. Washington, spearheading the tsunami relief effort,
turned a huge disaster into a major public relations exercise, but analysts say
while its image in the Islamic world and Asia may have benefited, it must work
harder to win over the sceptical region(AFP/File/Muhamad Marwan)
Perhaps this is the only way to keep Clinton under watch, but, what a price to pay for the Bush image. When George W. Bush succeeded Clinton, one of the major feelings generation in the public was the sense of restoration of honor to the presidency. Bush would restore the dignity of the office. Clinton was a juvenile deliquent, and a pervert, as were so many of his staff (as Gary Aldrich noted, in Unlimited Access, 1998). To place such a person in the current presidential family portrait is ghastly.
President George W. Bush, first lady Laura Bush, former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andrew Card (L-R) pay homage to Pope John Paul II in the Vatican's St. Peter's Basilica April 6, 2005. Photo by Pool/Reuters
Of course, President Bush does have some policies that are quite globalist, in the pejorative sense. And he seems quite willing to legalize the illegal Mexicans. And all the business about the "free trade" agreements is nothing more than limiting American trade, and giving more opportunity to Third World Countries. Well, then, Clinton must feel comfortable in the family.
But perhaps Bush does have a plan. Perhaps it does have to do with keeping Clinton under watch. That's giving it the benefit of the doubt.
And we might note the matter of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do.' There the highest offices of the United States government kneel to "pay homage to Pope John Paul." I dare say, this is another image expense. This is another cost. For the sake of world harmony, act like good Catholics, even if you're not Catholic at all.
But, shall we then deny any validity in the history of Europe at all? Are nationalism, Protestantism, and independence, the very principles which created America, all to magically, peacefully disappear with a bending of the knee?
World politics are intensely subtle, and surely Providence is any nation's most precious asset. Divine guidance is held at a high premium. However, we must ask, Does Providence contradict itself? Or, do leaders simply disregard history?
Perhaps there is one hope for the Bush family portrait in Rome:
Many years ago, one Syrian general named Na'aman became coverted to the true God, the God of Israel. Yet, in his position as Imperial commander, under the king, he would have to still go into a heathen temple (the temple of Rimmon) and bow and worship, accompanying the king of Syria. This troubled Na'aman. He said to Elisha, the prophet through whom the Lord had healed Na'aman of leprosy, "pardon thy servant in this thing." Na'aman knew Rimmon was not God. Yet, for ethnic, political reasons, he was obligated to play a role. Elisha said, "Go in peace." 2 Kings 5:18.19.
Pope John Paul (Karol Wojtyla)died today, around 9:00 a.m. this morning. The world mourns, incessantly, and the media is transfixed. John Paul was 84.
Pope John Paul
So, do we mourn the Pope, or the man? In the light of recent commentary on death and dying, we are free, if not obligated, to ask, What is it that we mourn? The office of the Pope is unfathomable. Any man in the position is usually rather remarkable. The man, Karol Wojtyla, is what is most fascinating. I doubt that his influence in the world was any more or any less significant than any other Pope serving 26 years, in a very tumultuous time of modern history. Let's make sure we give Karol the same rigorous evaluation that critics are so anxious to give people like Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or even George Washington. Let's not be naive or unfaithful about our renowned media analysis here. Let's not be so completely fake about all this that we insult the reality of the man, Karol Wojtyla.
Ah, but, we like to mourn. We have a lot to be sad about, a lot to be disappointed, frustrated, and angry about. Mourning seems to help wash it all away. We must mourn.
Yet, remember the deaths of the Indian students at Red Lake; the death of Terri Schiavo, the death of Johnny Cochran, the death of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, and all concurrent deaths of note, are all different, happening at different times for different reasons. Each of the people involved are widely, almost incomprehensibly different.
Is this why our mourning differs as well, in terms of intensity, media coverage, commentary, etc?
Indeed, mourning is for the living, not the dead. Mourning comforts the living. Usually. But the ancient Jewish king, David, so often a remarkable innovator, once displayed a completely unexpected response to a death. When his son of adultery was born, it immediately became sick. David prostated himself, face on the ground, for seven days. (2 Sam. 12:14-18.) He ate neither food nor drank water, beseeching the Lord to spare the infant.
The moment David understood that the child died, he got up, washed his face, changed his clothes, and to the utter dismay of the royal household, observed no funeral. He did not mourn. "While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now the child is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall to to him, but he shall not return to me."
Cicero (Marcus Tullious,106-43 BC), the gentle Roman philosophical commentator wrote (in an essay called On Friendship): (on the death of his friend Scipio) "I have been bereaved of a friend such as the world will never see again... But I am in no need of panaceas; I am quite capable of consoling myself, and I am particularly comforted by the fact that I am free of that error which in most men is the usual cause of anguish and the passing of friends. I do not feel that Scipioi has suffered any misfortune; I am the one who has suffered misfortune, if any has occurred. But to be crushed by grief at one's own misforutnes is the act not of a man who loves his friends, but of one who loves himself."
Well, we all have the right to mourn, for whatever reasons. What we face to day, however, are the distortions of the media, and the marketing emphasis on what death story sells, and what one doesn't.
We have been mislead and confused. We mourn according to the significance of the person, in our lives or thoughts, and not the real value of the person dying. This affects our estimation of crime, as well. When Sirhan B. Sirhan allegedly shot Robert Kennedy, this was considered as outrageous as possible. Why? Because of whom he allegedly shot. But when a drunk Indian stabs another drunk Indian, or a black man shots another black man in the ghetto, or when a Mexican wipes out another Mexican in an illegal border crossing, society hardly notices, or thinks nothing of it. It doesn't affect the society as a whole, and that's why.
But publicity doesn't define the significance of the crime, nor place the true value on the person's life who has died.
And there's the matter of self-deception when it comes to mourning. Sometimes, the heart assumes a certain moral advantage, a certain cleansing, in the process. In fact, in his attempt to classify "love," Soren Kierkegaard actually uses the example of loving a dead person, who cannot respond. Manipulation is absent. The love is pure, etc. Works of Love (Harper, 1962).
Well, I'd rather listen to Dolly Parton talk about love, but, I cite the sages (in my own background) only to point out how easily mislead the human heart can be. This is an age of mass media. Everything is evaluated by press coverage. This is very dangerous. We are ripe for a complete propaganda program, if it hasn't already happened.
I say, admire the man, Karol Wojtyla, and also be critical of him, just as we would any other man. Let's not fool ourselves here. Let's give him full respect. Let's not cheat him in our personal mourning process.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001