Ann Coulter, stripped! Coulter de-robed. Can it be?
Well, in a manner of speaking, yes. It all started with marketing (which, no doubt, she herself had little to do with). She recently referred to three of her books, Slander (2002), Treason (2003), and the new Godless (2006), as a trilogy. That means they have some abiding theme connecting them all. (Of course, the publishers apparently threw in How to Talk to a LIberal (2004, 2005) in between the second and third books of the trilogy. Perhaps they were impatient for the third, Godless, and simply decided to put all Ann's greatest op-eds together while they were waiting. That's all How to Talk to a Liberal is, a collection, not a narrative.)
But the publishers had a theme of their own: the de-clothing of Ann Coulter.
Slander, the first of the trilogy, starts out with a cover picturing Ann peeping up behind a news paper. It's just her head, her face, peering above the edge of the very 'yellow' news. Cute. Cute idea.
Treason, the second, pictures a full body shot, in a very sleek black outfit, apparently sweater and pants. Perhaps this is supposed to depict a sharp, cutting attorney, slamming down the charge of treason against the government (the Clintonian era, that is). She triumphs over the title, literally. Very authoritative image.
Then the intermittent How to Talk to a Liberal. Suddenly the arms are bared, in black leather. Getting tough now, gutsy, and blunt. Hands on hips. Nothing uncertain or unclear about this one (--except that a chapter had to be added that gave some semblence of the "how to" theme that professes to sell the otherwise mere collection of op-eds). (The paperback edition, 2005, added this chapter.).
Finally, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. This is supposed to be the tell all. The bare all, most clearly. Well, Ann is posed before us in a skimpy black tank top. Waist up. Much skin, with a small cross dangling above a faint cleavage. Looking a bit impish, I'd say. Having said the devastating things she said in the book, Crown publishers must have insisted in some kind of levity to be associated with the text, then, all doped themselves up to endure the media outrage at such a soul-baring episode of Coulter.
"Godless," indeed. These are Ann's most religious texts, where she comes out and states doctrine--both of the Left, and of the inevitably Right. It is similar to a drama of some kind. Shall we say, a street fight?
All the covers of the triology are black on white. Contrast. Ann is in black, and the background is white. Ann wears less and less. The words are harder and harder against prentense and the outrage of the Left. She 'exposes' the liberal movement as the party of death. The party that loves death, promotes death, and legislates death--on the unborn and the almost born, never on criminals, murderers, or rapists. It is a breath-taking scourge the baring Ann wreaks upon the Democratic enterprise (as engineered by the Left). To the liberals, abortion is a sacrament. Among other things, liberals regard convicted and executed murderers as martyrs; hysterical, sobbing women are untouchable, irrefutable witness for any position they chose (as long as it's anti-Bush, anti-America, anti-Republican); public school teachers are the priesthood of the Left; and evolution is the explanation of all. "The Aped Crusader" she calls the movement to remove all vestige of God from American society.
Godless is intellectually pornographic, indeed. It is the bare truth about liberalism. If anyone had a doubt that there is such a thing, he won't after reading Godless. It is extraordinary. Not that Coulter says things that haven't been said long ago, but, this is a rare, organized presentation of the major characteristics of liberalism as manifest in the American cultural millieu, ambiance, and social attitude--all legislated by liberals in power.
Read for yourself. You'll be convinced.
However, great fan of Coulter as I am, I'm puzzled, should I say, "troubled" at the covers of these books. There a trick of some kind going on there. I don't think I like it. I understand it, but it directly distracts and cheapens the most noble effort yet to identify the ills of our modern society. It is not right that such carful and clear thought should be trifled with on the covers of the very books. For this, I protest, in fact.
I consider Ann Coulter an American hero, most clearly American, most thoroughly American. Yes, there will come a day when I will inquire of her, directly, about her opinion on the American Indian. Until then, it is an uncharted position in her writing, as far as I know. She says nothing. The very word "Indian" is scarcely to be found at all. Ever. When it is mentioned, (I can count the number of times on half of one hand), it is in passing, in some vague historical innuendo, hardly to be considered a comment on Indians.
Having said these things, I can only say, I recommend Coulter as a cultural thermometer, a social standard of measurement, a focus, for modern American society. No one has really come close to sizing up the situation like Ann Coulter has. The Great White Woman, for all Americans. Not the White Buffalo Woman. She was for Indians. Ann is for America. She's made no attempt to patronize Indians. That should give us great confidence. We should respect her for that. She has made no attempt to save the Indian. For that, we can thank her. She has made a heroic effort to 'save' America. For that, we can thank her again.
But now, if Godless gets us to the tank top, what's next?
The Supreme Court of Japan says it's okay for Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to visit the Yasukuni Shinto Shrine, to honor the spirits of the dead--including convicted war criminals buried with the 2.5 million Japanese war dead buried in the Shrine. (Decision handed down June 28, 2006.) Why wouldn't it be okay? Korean and Chinese people whose families suffered at the hands of the Japanese feel that Koizumi's homage shows the lack of repentence for what Japan did during WWII. There are seven separate suits filed against Koizumi.
Koizumi at the Yasukuni Shrine, acknowleding
the amoral gods, the departed spirits of the
dead, not the lives or characters of the bodies.
But the Japanese Supreme Court decided that Japan rules Japan, not foreign protesters. What a profound lession in international politics. Never mind the fact that the protesters (seeking monetary damages no less) completely ignore the nature of the Shinto religion. They want to rule another nation by protest. They want sovereignty over another race, and another people.
"Friday's was the first of seven separate lawsuits, filed by opponents of the visits, to reach the Supreme Court. In this suit, relatives of Japanese, Chinese and South Koreans killed in the 1930s and '40s sought unspecified damages for the visits, which they said violated the constitutional separation of state and religion.
The court, which rarely deviates with the government on sensitive issues, threw out the case, saying that there was no legal basis for claiming monetary damages. The ruling did not touch on the larger and more difficult question of the visits' constitutionality."
BadEagle has pointed out before, the Shinto religion does not honor the life, deeds, or character of the dead. It honors the departed spirits, the kami (gods) which depart without moral definition. This is ancient animism. Koizumi is not honoring war criminals. That is a superimposition of Western abstract political ideology. That is Leftism, really. It is actually wholly irrelevant to Shintoism, the ancient national religion of Japan. The Left despises national religion, always, especially when practiced by the nation that hosts it. The Left opposes nationhood, periodl
But on that latter aspect, not touching on "the larger and more difficult question of the visits' constitutionality," we can observe anew just how far that Leftist and false "separation of church and state" principle can be taken. The question becomes, Can a government official practice his religion while holding government office? If Koizumi can't visit the Shrine, then President Bush can't go to church. This is how the Left would have it.
Of course, if Bush practiced Shinto, the ACLU would be first to defend him. If there was opportunity, the NEA would have the Shinto faith practiced in all American schools, as well as Islam, Bahai, Satanism, and Voodoo. It's only Christianity the Left wants barred from all American public life.
So, Japan gives the world a lesson in nationalism. A nation has the right to define itself. Not in the name of equality will Japan submit to the protests of foreign countries. Not in the name of international globalism will Japan be ruled by alien nations.
Finally, most people in the world associate Japan with Buddhism, an imported religion (6th Century BC) from Northern India (Nepal), via China. All the tourist sites about Japan feature the Buddhist temples and shrines. It is therefore preeminently important that the leader of the Japanese nation make known to the world that Buddhism is not Japanese. There is absolutely no obligation for any Japanese person to adhere to a any foreign religion of any kind. Prime Minister Koizumi has set a wonderful example of national pride and national autonomy. He is reminding his people of their national history and character.
The Yasukuni Shrine visits aren't about WWII. They are about the ethnic and religious identity of Nippon (Japan).
I say, two thumbs up for Koizumi. Ancient Shinto isn't about war or politics. Furthermore, Koizumi has publically apologized for suffering Japan caused its neighbors during WWII. His visits to the shrine have nothing to do with that history.
The famous Japanese "gates," the torri, at the entrance to Shinto shrines.
Reading Upton Sinclair (1878-1968) was not part of my literary studies, I'm happy to say. Though I've lived in Boston, I never read Boston (1928), Sinclair's 'documentary' novel about the Italian anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Suppposedly, the two men, small thugs, were made into the first great political trial event of the 20th century due to the circumstances of the times, the "Red Scare" of 1919-20. Today liberals would say they were simply "profiled," because they were newly immigrated Italians. There was a terrible rage of Italian anarchism (extreme socialism) on the eastern seaboard of America at the time, and these two briganti trascurabile were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. (Shame on them, robbing and then murdering a payroll guard and his assistant, April 15, 1920, then getting caught later not only for that crime, but for direct involvement in anarchist activities!)
Upton Sinclair (1878-1968)
Theirs was one of the most celebrated liberal causes, one of the first in which liberals protested trial, conviction, and execution of white European criminals in America, as opposed to the usual lethal 'social sports' wreaked upon Indians, and later Negroes, through what we call litigation--rather the lack thereof. What a terrible thing, to try someone based on racial, ethnic, or national prejudice. Why, it's unthinkable.
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, new Italian immigrants, tried for robbery
and murder in 1920, fraudulently defended by Upton Sinclair.
Sinclair of course bemoans the fate of Sacco and Vanzetti. He advocated, with artistic articulation, that the men were executed not for their crime of robbery and murder, but for their political views, and because they were Italian immigrants. Why, it was all a case of mean prejudice.
Interestingly, I was recently asked my opinion about Sinclair. Beakerkin, the blogger, submitted a variety of questions to me in the form of a written interview, which I have responded to on the BadEagle forums. At that I first responded, I knew nothing, only the name. However, I have been reading Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown, 2006), and there is a section on this very topic of Sinclair and the Italian anarchists. She offers stunning research. It's in a chapter about how liberals eschew punishment for criminals. Liberals loathe prisons, punishment, and consequences altogether. They celebrate known murders, either because of their race, their socio-economic status, or their political views.
According to Jean O. Pasco's "Sinclair letter turns out to be another expose," an article in the LA Times (December 24, 2005), Sinclair withheld information about the Italian thugs, and he knew that they were positively guilty. He simply chose to celebrate the socialist cause threw them. It was an early example of the Left, in America, where the political end justifies the fraudulent means. Sinclair actually framed alibis for the thugs! Looks like Sinclair himself should have been tried for obstruction of justice. Well, that only works against Republicans today, not Democratic presidents in office (like Bill Clinton).
Coulter went on to say that Sinclair accused Holywood of blacklisting movies about Sacco and Vanzetti, "apparently because no one turned his book into a movie." Yet, Coulter observes, there are seven movies about Sacco and Vanzetti, three made in Hollywood, including a TV movie by Sidney Lumet, nominated for four Emmys. There's also the 1971 Italian film Sacco e Vanzetti (music by Joan Baez), which was nominated for the Palme d'Or at Cannes. Then Ann says, "I guess the two payroll carriers murdered in cold blood by Sacco and Vanzetti will have to wait another day for their movie" (p. 53).
We're all waiting for another day, it seems. One has to wonder about the whole mafia craze that perpetually mesmerizes the entertainment industry. There are those that link the mafia with the original anarchist movement. There's a book out on that topic, The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection, by Diego Gambetta, fairly recently reviewed by Robert P. Murphy. But examining the socio-economic realities of the mafia is entertaining only to those without morals, and without true patriotism.
But, like Meyer Lansky said,
People prefer to be righteous at home, and a sinner someplace else. As for myself I stick to this saying: When you lose your money you lose nothing; when you lose your character you lose everything.
Ironic, coming from the biggest ganster brain in the the 20th century.
Maier Suchowljansky (1902-1983), better known
as Meyer Lansky.
The media serves the terrorists more than any other element of society. It repeatedly misrepresents and confuses issues.
The lastest example of this is the Miama 7. Seven young black men were arrested last night (Thursday, June 15, 2006) and indicted for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism against the United States--namely the Sears Tower in Chicago (a favorite fantasy target among all terrorist aspirants since 9/11.) The media delights to called them "homegrown." Why, they're American. They're like us. They're part of us.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Would be "homegrown" mass murderers? They're not homegrown.
They're Haitian, or Haitian extracts, without concept of nationhood,
except as a large social target to get world attention. Hateful Hatians.
Nothing more. They're not Americans. Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abra-
ham, Stanley Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson
Lemorin and Rotschild Augustine. (Not in order)
Since July 14, 2005, media has constantly used the term "home-grown terrorist" to describe those Arabic immigrants--who happen to have been either citizens of a foreign country by immigration or who were perhaps born in that foreign country to their immigrant parents--but who have commited acts of mass murder against those same countries. "Britain's home-grown terrorists" was the title of a CNN piece, July 14, 2005, describing the Arabic Muslim murderers who happened to be born in London, but who committed mass murders. The article's author pretended to be shocked, but of course blamed the murderers' behavior on social conditions among Muslims in England. It was England's fault, not the murderers', the host country's fault, not the foreign, non-assimilating Muslims.
"But London's bombing suspects are British, born and bred, with jobs and families and lives. Their victims were not, on the surface, enemies; not an occupying army -- but their own countrymen," said socio-pathological reporter (i.e., liberal, anti-civilization, etc.) Matthew Chase.
These murderers are not British, in any sense of the word. This is liberal spin. This is double-speak. This is a lie. Perhaps it is also ignorance, as well as misconception. Such thinking shows no conception of nationhood, at any level. Such reporters abound in media.
Such thinking, however, also permeates all converstation when speaking of religious mass-murderers who happen to be immigrants or citizens of the country on which they conspire mass murder. Even American Attorney General Alberto Gonzales uses the term "homegrown" to describe them. FBI Director Robert Mueller uses the term. It's well-established now.
In spite of it's attempts to cover up the truth, the media has leaked out the fact that the men are Haitian or Haitian extract. The media is calling them the beloved and honored term, "radical black muslim," but I don't hear Louis Farrakahn endorcing the Miami 7. Not yet anyway. Perhaps they aren't high class enough for the Nation of Islam. A little socio-economic prejudice there? (Farrakahn himself is an embarrassment and a nuisance, but I've never heard of the Nation plotting mass murder. On the other hand, I've never personaly known a black man that was particularly fond of the Nation of Islam, either. Most black people love America, in spite of it all. It's home. They really are homegrown Americans.)
"They were persons who...came to view their home country as the enemy," said Gonzales. There's that word "home" again. See how it makes us all wonderfully sympathetic? See how it tugs at our hearts, tempting us all to be liberal, to seek to understand, rather than to eliminate the enemy?
Homegrown used to mean good things. In fact, the best things in life. It's supposed to mean purity, authenticity, and the most valued characteristics. These kind of people are not "homegrown." They're alien, in mind, spirit, and body. They have no affinity whatsoever with the "home" country. They are merely inhabitants. The word "home" is misapplied to them.
This is another lesson in nationhood. Without clear concepts, real meaning, and concrete manifestations--such as law, borders, common language, even common religion, no nation will survive long. The lack of definition is an invitation to riff-raff, dissolution, and enemies of every order. These Miami 7 were so far away from the concept of nationhood they wouldn't register as "citizens" in any country. They are nearly incapable. Their only meaning in life was hate. To focus on something bigger than themselves, in a negative way, only shows how pathetic and pitiable they really were.
Al-queda is probably embarrassed, by still chuckling about it. It's all about the rise of evil. It is gratifying to the Islamic satanists, in any form, to any degree. Second thought, they' have no shame. The Miami 7 couldn't possible embarrass al-queda. And besides, the Miami 7 are "homegrown." Why, that's something to be proud of, among all abandoned souls. For that, they can thank their best friend, the liberal media.
Seven US military servicemen in Iraq were arrested, placed in shackles, and cast in prison--before a charge was brought against them. This, in connection with a non-demonstrable event on April 26. An Iraq man was killed in Hamdania (near Falluja). There were apparently no witnesses, no evidence revealed from an autopsy yet. Insurgents have discovered that merely the accusation of crime against American military takes the soliders off the battlefield just as assuredly as an IED. Iraqi insurgents have learned they can depend on anti-American media, and on military officers who pander to politicians. American troops have two enemies: the Iraqis (who may or may not be armed, may or may not be civilian, may or may not be homocidists), and the superior officers in the American military (who may be concerned about their own roles and careers, who may be concerned about political pressure from Washington, who may be concerned about something other than trying to win a war which they are not actually allowed to do anyway).
Of course, there are Marines accused of killing civilians in Haditha, back in November of 2005. Iraqi and non-Iraqi insurgents (murderers) can depend on media for support in this case, too.
Yet another investigation is going on over the deaths of three prisoners who were held in custody of "US-led forces in Iraq."
It's a trend. Court is all about political entertainment. What happens or doesn't happen in court, all depends on political pressure from outside. The soldiers can scarcely concentrate on their ill-defined mission. Never in the history of the world was combat conducted under such debilitating circumstances. Never were on-lookers' egos more interruptive, destructive, and foolish. Never were the soldiers' stories so neglected, so covered up, so distorted. (Sean Hannity tries to give them a voice when he can.)
The liberals want a nice war? A bloodless change? Not really. They just want to be in charge, these anti-war theorists. They want power. They incessantly contradict themselves while they advocate their positions. New York liberals continually said, There is no war, there is no threat, there are no terrorists. Then, when some money was cut from their post 9/11 security budget, they cried bloody murder! "We're threatened! Wer'e not secure!"
But, the court thing is beyond repair at this point. If you're accused, you're guilty until proven innocent. The Duke Lacrosse rape case has demonstrated that in a most dramatic way.
It's the power of accusation. (Maybe the intensified version of 'the power of suggestion.') This is akin to the demonic in origin. "The accuser of our brethren" is a title given to Satan, in fact, in Revelation 12:10. It is an awesome power. We all have it. It is ours to exercise. Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, litigation (professional accusation) is a marketable service, and competition for court is fierce. We are encouraged to accuse one another. (To think, there was a time when legal services were nothing more than petty signatures offered by venders on the street in Renaissance Italy. A lawyer was just signature on land deeds, wills, etc. All he did was create documents. The common man had no use for him. That's why the lawyer was no more than a vender on the street.) Today, court is a major political tool, or even a personal gambling table. It's a service, or an opportunity, there to be used by whomever, for whatever purpose.
Five hundred years ago, an attorney may have
had a booth next to a tomato vender.
But, now that we have come to this point, when "judgement is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off," indeed, when "truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter," (Isaiah 59:14), I'd say the situation is rather dire.
Freedom means freedom to lie, to pervert, to abuse. That's the real price of freedom, as well as the blood it costs to procure. "Responsibility" is what we call dealing with the fall-out, or, the abusers of freedom--attorneys and judges being the chief abusers. But then, people are generally willing fodder. Who's then to blame? Perhaps, as a society, we get what we deserve.
They're not really 'chicks,' but more like middle-aged women, these Dixie Chicks. Their thoughts about the world may reflect the immaturity of young teenie-boppers, yet I'm not sure we can called them seasoned protesters either, despite their age (all in mid-thirties.) They've been around a while as a band (1984), but, to this day, they give the impression more of ignorance than of anything else. An outrageous remark to two, or three, doesn't qualify one as a professional Leftist. These women have no complex thoughts. Their remarks are superficial at best, meant only for sensation and publicity. Women pop stars do crazy things when their act is flagging. (Janet Jackson stripped herself on national TV.)
The Dixie Chicks, Emily Robison, Natalie Maines, and Martie Maguire, not "chicks" anymore,
but more like old hens, hen-pecking at patriotism. They don't even qualify as political hacks.
They're just famous, and unrefined. Their fame amplifies their otherwise rather insignificant,
empty words.
At any rate, a recent comment of Natalie Maines (32) may deserve some attention, if only as an example of serious and hazardous ignorance. The remark is primitive enough that others might easily mimic it, in the name of "sincerety."
"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."
This is obvious ignorance. The woman doesn't know what a country is, nor what love means. Love of country--she confesses that she doesn't know what it means.
Well, as the thirty-something woman, she is only one step ahead of the teen-age college freshmen I taught at OSU-OKC. They didn't know what patriotism meant, at all. Giant intellect Natalie Maines at least knows the word patriotism means love of country. But, as I said, it's the words "love" and "country" that she's oblivious to. What a shame. Doesn't appear to be much of a family girl. And here she is speaking for the two sisters that formed the original group, Martie (Erwin) Maguire (37) and her sister Emily (Erwin) Robison (35). Well, Maines does seem to be the main mouth piece. Lynn West, program director at WXBM, a country station in Pensacola, Fla., said, "Every time things seem to die down, she opens her mouth again."
Speaking out against the President of the United States will always bring attention to any public pop group, successful or floundering. 'They's ways," indeed. The lack information, education, and articulation, however, on the part of the Dixie Chicks seems to call for, in addition to disgust, a certain amount of pity. It is pitiful when someone shames himself ignorantly, thinking he's being sincere--or expressing some other idiotic notion never to be expected from pop music star, or most any entertainer.
The disconnect of the Chicks with their environment is widening. Despite a top single album ("Not Ready to Make Nice"), show tickets sales are sinking. The group had to add show dates in Canada. Well, that figures. A lot of British flavor still in Canada. And after all, the Chicks are falling out with America, and what's left but socialist low life Brits, the kind that created the Beatles and the Stones? The Chicks are falling out with real American Country music as well, so they've tried to associate themselves with Irish folk music (almost always a winner), and other forms of authentic "white" music. Fine. But they shouldn't think that they're representing anything particularly American these days, ideologically or musically.
So, these women are too old to be "chicks," and too ignorant to be patriots. They're just aging show girls, and their appeal to teenie-bobbers will flag, and they'll have to go right where they're going--to the low end Londons of the world.
When all else fails, wear plaid. (Photo from a UK Telegraph feature).
A 'Down Under' newspaper (Fairfax) quotes mouthy Maines yet further: "To me, I was being patriotic by pointing out that Americans don't all think alike, that we're a free-thinking society and you can't just lump us together." Now there's real insight. This is pricisely the kind of sophomoric superfluity that runs rampant in the sewers of British society--in all its farthest outposts in the world. Why, to criticize the country is the supreme act of patriotism! The triumph of intellectualism. The apogee of spirituality. I suppose Marxist "socialism" is a natural thing then, for the adolescent. Apparently the Dixie Chicks haven't matured beyond that stage.
And, by the way, the word "Dixie" refers to something with deep pride and dignity. A true Dixie woman knows what patriotism means--beyond most in America! If I were a son of Dixie, I would stage the biggest boycott of these ignorant women, these fake radicals, that the pop industry had ever seen. They are the antithesis of everything inherent in the word, "Dixie." I'm not sure how their ignorance could lead them into such a position, but, they're there. Perhaps it's just sales, professional circumstances, and the mood of the day. It is certainly the mouth of Natalie Maines. These are actually a group of harmless women, just singing pop songs. Their fame and fortune is what gives weight to their vapid words. This is circumstance, surely. Either that, or the desperation of their handlers, determined to keep them on the front pages, and to keep their ticket sales up.
This Friday, June 23, 2006, the Japanese Supreme Court will make a ruling on the visits of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the famous Shinto Yasukuni Shrine for the war dead--which honors Japan's 2.5 million war dead, including criminals executed for war crimes after World War II. In the suit, filed in 2001, the 338 plaintiffs argued that Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni Shrine violates the constitution. Article 20 of the Japanese Constitution says "The state and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity." Koizumi has visited the shrine five times since he took office in 2001.
The victims of the families of Japanese war criminals, among the Koreans and the Chinese, are wildly indignant that the Japanese supreme leader should honor those who were condemned for war crimes.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi,
of the Shinto faith.
BadEagle examined this matter before. But now, is it a matter of moving the war criminals to a different cemetary? Or can the Japanese honor their own religion, their own dead, in their own way? Who rules Japan, Korean and Chinese protesters? Who rules a nation, it's own leaders, or alien "rights" activists? What does it matter whom the Japanese killed, or what their religion was, Buddhist or Christian, or something other than Shinto? Do the Japanese not have a right to their own religion, their own dead, by their own will?
Nazi war criminals are all bured somewhere. Are those cemetaries off limits to all German leaders--no matter who else is burried there, no matter whom any German leader wishes to honor?
But even if all war criminals were buried in their own cemetaries, who would visit them? Why? Visiting graves is not about honor, but about memory. It might be about prayer for their eternal state.
The issues in this Japanese case are universal, really. Does a nation have a right to be a nation?
Koizumi has said that he visits the shrine as an individual person, not as the Prime Minister of Japan. It isn't a state visit. It is his personal act. Any ruling that would deny him such a privilege, while in office, would be the same as saying an American president would not be allowed to practice Christianity while in office. Shintoism is the ancient, national religion of Japan. The Prime Minister of Japan is not allowed to practice it? And who knows who he is supposedly honoring? Orientals, particularly the Japanese, are notorious for formalities, but, this is over the top. A private act is to be regarded as a national expression? Formality exceeds then all personal realities? This is manipulation and politics. This is superimposing Western political agenda on ancient oriental custom.
Yet lower courts in Japan have already declared the visits to the shrine as unconstitutional. In April, 2004, a district court ruled thus, and again in September, 2005. It would be a horrible precedent for the Supreme Court to validate such incredible prejudice and extreme misapplication of propriety.
Do the German families of their buried war criminals have a right to visit their dead? Surely. And yes, there is potentially great impropriety and distortion in this matter of grave site visits. Apparently no one in Germany has created any shrines to Adolf Hitler. They don't even know for sure where his bones are after he committed suicide. (The latest Russian rumor, if one cares to consider Russian rumors, is that the bones were secretly exhumed in 1970, and burned, then dumped into the Magdeburg sewer through a manhole.)
But a man has indeed built a shrine to Hitler, not in Germany, but in Wisconsin! Theodore Junker, who grew up in a German enclave of Romania and served in the Waffen-SS during the war, came later to the U.S. in 1955, worked as a janitor and handyman in Chicago and became a citizen about five years later. He is 87 now, a retired farmer in a remote area in Wisconsin, and is living out his dream--to reverse the world's opinion of Nazi Germany. He wants to honor all the Europeans who perished under the "Allied persecution and genocide.” I suppose the next thing we'll be calling the Allied invasion is the Allied Holocaust--on the Nazis. It is a wonder that liberals--who so hate America, have not espoused Herr Junker. Will the ACLU defend him of the ADL sued him? Now there's a case.
Theodore Junker and his quiet shrine to Adolf Hitler.
Be that as it may, there is still a principle involved that we do well to consider: honor is a matter of perspective. Either we accept that, or we appeal to a universal code of values that insults sovereignty or disallows nationhood altogether.
And if these views are amiss, then we'd better simply make sure that war criminals are buried in separate cemetaries. And while we're at it, let's remember that what we're calling "war crimes" today were formed after WWII. Many individuals were found guilty of acts considered legal, or even required, by their nation at the time; such findings represent a violation of the concept of sovereignty--as understood at that time.
And world allows the Muslims to honor their murderous, demonic "terrorists"? Who can honor that perspective--but other demoniacs? Islam has nothing to do with nationhood. Islam is about universal dominion. Islam eschews nationhood. The world beware Islam!
It is simply that not all the dead are honorable, but only memorable, unfortunately. If I can pick up Mein Kampf and read it for educational purposes, Koizumi can acknowledge Yasakuni, a shrine of national warriors. It's about remembering, learning, not honoring. Reading Mein Kampf is certainly not an act of worship or honor on my part, and Koizumi's visit to the shrine might be one of remorse and regret. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what he said he was doing. According to Shrine Shinto, the oldest form of the Shinto religion, the dead become kami, divine spirits, regardless of their deeds during their human life. They are not transcendent, but live in this world, with us now. The formalities, the rituals of Shinto are important, even if the dead were not believers. The Shintoist must honor their spirit form. Acknowleding the ancestors, I believe we call it today. The Shintoist does not remember their bad deeds.
So Japan has a terrible record from WWII? The world insults Japan when it caters gingerly to maniac Muslims.
Father's Day, probably the most important holiday in any society, is sorely in need of revival in America. Fatherhood is one of the most abused concepts in the culture. Ninety percent of the trouble makers in the country grew up without fathers, as bastards, yet there is some clown out there claiming he is a "father," even though he may not be sure of who his offspring actually are, let alone having completely ignored them and not raised them.
Ours is a country of fatherless, not because the men have been killed in war or died of a plague, but because children have grown up without fathers. Some father, somewhere along the line of moral indigents, failed to be a father. His children fail, and their children fail.
Add to this epidemic of irresponsibility the idea that women are equal to men, and in fact don't need men, and you have a nation of fatherless children. Girls grow up craving male attention--any male, any attention. Boys grow up angry at women, and abuse them.
And now the government Hilaryites think it is society's responsibility to care for the children, like some giant mythical person, Uncle Sam is supposed to magically raise kids into fine, responsible citizens. Now everthing is about children. It's all "for the children"--the most powerful moral incentive pretentious politicians are able to muster. They use it loudly, as they also declare the woman's right to kill her unborn--with the assistance of government funded medical professionals. Indeed, all "for the children."
By now, these conditions are not surprising. We've come to expect irrational contradiction on the part of the Left, on any subject, at any time. It seems that all liberal thought reaches a final, colossal contradiction. The ACLU, for instance, wants children subjected freely to the most devastating pornography available. It's the First Amendement right of the perpetrators. The ACLU also wants unborn children to be freely killed, at will. The ACLU wants to take all responsibility and power away from parents, and to give all rights to the children and those who would destroy the children.
Radical egalitarianism, as Robert Bork put it, radical individualism, or just raw self-idolizing--the ACLU doctrine, this always leads to impossible contradition. It becomes a social autolysis, and it is actually no more unusual than bacterial and virul invasions of the body. Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty, as the saying goes. We have to constantly oppose such invasions.
If we don't, we get Mexico, the great invasion of our times. The bastard hordes of fatherless Mexico, amoral and arrogant, are a gangland infection of improprieties of every grade.
Politicians seem to think that it's all going to work out. Like some elderly, incapable soul, the government wants to just accept the results of it's irresponsibility. Like some helpless, indulgent grandfather, Washington wants to roll over and play compassionate. It is as if the government has retired from moral responsibility. Like the ancient Hebrew priest Aaron, both of whose sons were burned alive by the wrath of God (Leviticus 10:1-3), or like Eli, whose sons started a temple prostitute business and brought such a curse upon their family that it should never be removed (I Samuel 3: 11-14), or Samuel himself whose sons, when he was old, became so vile that the people refuse to recognize them and demanded a king instead (I Samuel 8:1-5), the US government, and many governments in Europe and in the world, presume to control the masses, yet have shown no restraint or parental wisedom on the very matters that need fatherly care the most.
Father's Day? Well, if it has anything to do with creating new life, if it is at all connected to responsibility, we should no doubt follow the example of the Creator, the Father "in heaven." Sabbath is a good day for contemplating such a role. That's weekly, and that's a little more constant than a once a year show. Indeed, fathering is a daily challenge.
It takes a strong man to be a father. In a way, there should be laws of testing, of qualification, before a male was ever allowed to be a father. There should be a serious boot camp. The most important even in life, a birth, has become the most meaningless, the most mindless, and the most costly. Indeed, this kind of selfish, indulgent mass rape of the world population, this kind of "fatherhood," is destroying the world before our eyes.
Fathers Day? It's a nice thought. It could also be called "Warrior's Day." It takes a mighty man to be a real father. Biologically, anyone can do it, and they do. But morally and spiritually, it takes far more than most can handle, or even conceive of.
What's the alternative? Mass sterilization?
I do commend the white race on this one: the white race is reproducing the least, and it's based on principle. Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West (2001) pointed out how American and European white populations are on the dramatic decline, and how the third world darkies multiply desperately--(notwithstanding the barbaric abortions also performed daily in the third world.) Buchanan said it was because the white Christian civilization wants the best life for their children. Fewer children is the logical way to procure their better future. But the third world has no such concerns. To multiply is their animalistic purpose, their primitive drive, and numbers are their political justification. As I said, hordes of bastards, masses of fatherless, that is all such non-thinking reproduction ever produces. They have no concept of a higher, better life, but only through a monkey see-monkey do response.
Again, Father's Day is sorely in need of revival. All we have is some kind of weak grandfathered-in process of accepting the lack of fatherhood. We grandfather in the bastards.
On the lighter side, the way things should be, here's David Buchananville and his
son, Ethan (4), and Ethan's first catch! I'm quite sure there is no greater pride in
a father and son (2004). This is from a simple family site on the internet. I
thought it was triumphant!
My apologies to the non-caucasions in the world. But, as a whole, the third world demonstrates the lack of values which gave the advantage to the white race. Their values made the white race transcend all others. We all need to look into those social values, those principles which allowed them to excel in all they did. I think the main value was the close and permanent family concept. That is a Judeo-Christian concept, more than anything else. We like to say it is "technology" that gave them the advantage, but how did they get that? How did that come about? I say it came about by social circumatances. By family.
I'm convinced. Religion is an instinct. The quest for righteous, however, is not what's natural. It is self-justification that drives us. Hollywood has demonstrated this over and over again. The quest is not for character, but for moral recognition--after having paraded immorality for a lucrative career. The guilt of illicit fame and ill-gotten gain is assuaged only by the most rigorous pursuit of publicity for good causes.
"I knew what I was doing was taking a principled stand,"
says Daryl Hannah, awaiting arrest at the South Los
Angeles urban farm. (Lawrence K. Ho / LAT)
Daryl Hannah, featured recently on BadEagle, is still getting press over her dramatic moral stance (climbing a tree in the Los Angeles alien garden). The porn star has her "principles," just like Pamela Anderston (protesting KFC's treatment of chickens), national breast barer Janet Jackson (donating to AIDS and praising "tolerance" and the award she received as an act of God), Mariah Carey (practicing her grandmothers "faith" in order to continue her career of being a sexual provocateur), Angelina Jolie (good will ambassador to starving African hordes with AIDS), and a host of others. "Celebrities and their causes," as the LATimes calls a photo feature on the grand dams of do-good. The LATimes just offered today another feature on the great moral character, the spiritual transcendence, the towering 'religious' achievement of Daryl Hannah.
Janet Jackson, talking faith at the
Hollywood homo "temple."
It's a stunning array of women who have made their fortunes off exposing their bodies, acting out sexual perversities, and who then must identify zealously with the most passionate causes of "good will" in the world. It's about preserving nature, preserving animals, and preserving the lowest conditions of human life.
Is anyone really fooled by this--anyone but those involved? And are they really fooled? Do they fool themselves?
Certainly not for others to judge, of course. But, we have to be able to have some concrete idea of what's right and wrong. Wrong doers who do right don't make the right wrong for doing it. Nor vise versa. Right doers don't make wrong into right by doing it. But right is right and wrong is wrong. Whence cometh this unbearable burden of ambiguity? How and why the confusion? And what is at stake?
In "What sent Hannah up a tree," LATimes reporter Robert Welkos says Daryl has been struggling with ideologies and rights and wrongs since she was a young child. Why, her participation in the LA alien garden project was nothing new for her. Then Welkos adds, "But unlike some activists in Hollywood, she [Daryl] pointed out, she really tries to live what she preaches." Ahah. She's more sincere than the other pretenders. Well, nothing like tooting your own horn. He that tooteth not his own, the same shall not be tooted.
Pamela Anderson, upset about chicken breasts.
Well, the New Testament says some terrible things about our human pretenses. Jesus is reported to have said (Matthew 6) that alms giving should be done in private. Praying should be done in private. Self discipline (fasting) should be done in private. There should never be any public parading of "righteousness." Yet, where does this leave preachers, televangelists, and above all, the Hollywood "saints?" Those Hollywood "whores" can't get enough publicity for there righteousness. That's the whole point. They live in front of the camera, for any reason. That is their livelihood. They have to have the public eye.
Sometimes, it seems like true religion doesn't even exist in the world. And thus evolved the concept and the legends of the zadokim, the invisible righteous, upon whom the fate of the world hangs. There always exist, in every age. I've read different versions of this European rabbinic tradition. Some versions say there are thirteen of these righteous persons, some say 24, some 36. I don't know. I know that the point is simple: these people are not recognized for what they are. They are in fact unknown. They are invisible. They do not seek to be known. Yet, God knows them, and spares the world for their sakes, continually. Moreover, one cannot seek to become one. Legends say the zadokim don't even know who they are themeselves.
They're not in Hollywood. On the contrary, I think Hollywood folk are all about guilt, not righteousness. But, the public pays to see them sin, so, the public is guilty too. We shouldn't condemn them too greatly for their moral wrestlings, however hypocritical and obvious, and outrageous. We should grant them their "causes,"--their efforts to make their consciences feel better. We all do that, in different ways. We all tend to do whatever it is that makes us feel better, for we've all done wrong. We all want recognition for doing good. It helps us feel better about ourselves.
Angelina Jolie, at a "Human Rights: Reduced to Charity"
conference in Switzerland, January, 2006.
I suppose the rub is simply the fact that most of us are such a small scale, we react with aversion when we see ourselves on a grand public scale. But that's all this is. For, after all, Hollywood stars are what we have made them. It is a vicarious relationship we bear to them. We are guilty of the same kind of hypocrisy and failure they are, but the difference is, we've given our dollars to make them grand. Our money has magnified their sins. So, who is the greater sinner? Who's the more pathetic? Who's the more self-deluded?
Land, law, and priorities. American Indians know the story. Land is precious. Ownership is a matter of force. Law is created by those with the greater force. Priority is simply how those laws are made and wielded by those in power. It is the way of the world. We musn't bemoan the obvious an inexorable. The sky is blue, like it or not.
Becoming a victim of another's priorities can happen to anyone and everyone. BadEagle just just reported on the land dispute in Los Angeles, where illegal Mexicans were basically claiming squatters rights. That issue involved imminent domain, private ownership, and far-Left activism.
There's another interesting case in Dallas, involving private property, a university, and a future Bush library project. It's about university priorities. Universities are notorious for crunching property owners around them when the university wants to expand. Southern Methodist University apparently wants to bull-doze some near by dilapidated condominiums in order to gain the contract for the new Bush presidential library. Attorney Gary M. Vodicka, one of the residents who owns and still rents out three of the condos in the now mostly deserted complex, refuses to bow out. He lives in one of the condos himself. This is not an elite living situation. It is simply a matter of private property, and, according to Vodicka, a matter of intimidation and fraud on the part of the larger entity, the university. "He's praised by some as a determined underdog willing to defend property owners in the 347-unit University Gardens complex against SMU. Detractors call him an overzealous troublemaker," said the Dallas Morning News. Of course, he is a maverick, and just doesn't go with the flow. But other residents do feel they were basically financially forced out. The university claims to have bought the entire condo complex for $51 million last year. The condo board had declared the complex obsolete, and decided to sell to the university, so the university could win the bid on the Bush library. (Apparently there is a question of ownership. Does the board own the condos, or do the individual owners own their condos? This vital detail is not clear in the papers.)
Brad Cheves, Vice-President
of Development, SMU
A later DMN report says that the the university declared the condo complex obsolete after it bought the complex, without telling the residents that it would be razing the place, and that they would all have to move out. They offered the residents a cut-rate price, without telling them why. The tenants, mostly elderly retirees, assumed they would continue living in their condos.
Well, Texas Tech University would like to win the bid on the Bush library, too. A West Texas coalition is already taking advantage of the SMU dispute, and saying there would be no such controversy at TTU. Of course, Baylor (Waco) was one of the finalists in the bid as well.
Interestingly, Vodicka wants to take depositions from everyone in Dallas or Southern Methodist University that was in on the discussions, or who knew anything about the deal. He's lined up about 60 people, including Laura Bush and White House counsel Harriet Miers. Vodicka is an attorney, and knows how to manipulate things, and he apparently knows when he's been manipulated himself.
So, it's all about land, law, ownership, and power. (Could we just say, 'money'?) In spite of the fact that American universities are ideological Communist strongholds in the free world, they operate exactly like capitalist enterprises. Even the private schools, such as Southern Methodist University, are not exempt from strong arm tactics that resemble Communist tyranny. We'll have to call it Capitalist tyranny, eh?
Well, the ACLU, the Hollywood actors, the grand Leftists, the Marxists of the world, none of these wonderful human rights folk are interested in Gary Vodicka, or the elderly folk who were run out of their homes. Those marvelous champions of the weak couldn't care less about American citizens, but would rather parade their righteousness in behalf of alien Mexicans. Never mind about those old Americans, rich or poor. Certainly not when a Bush library is involved.
Moral of story: don't let your property run down. Better, don't be poor. It's a liability. Don't be a poor American citizen and go up against an alien Mexican, or Arab. Nah, just don't expect support if you're a law-abiding American patriot, rich or poor. Money is the decisive factor here. Money and power. Morals and principles are just cards in a game. They have to be lined up with other cards, the right cards, or they won't win the hand. Morals are priceless. They may make you penniless. But, that's the price you may pay for them. It's our choice. Of course, some times standing up for them may make you rich and famous. Depends on your attorney. Depends on the media.
Today is America's National Flag Day.
Old Glory, a triumph of the ages.
I recited the Pledge of Allgiance when I was five years old, in Kindergarten, here in Oklahoma City. I recall the day. It was my first public, social participation in the pledge. It was a remarkable moment for me. It was many years ago, but I can remember goose bumbs all over. It was a glorious thing, the American flag. And to share that feeling with others, who felt the same, this was truly special, and unforgettable. To this day, I seek that same experience.
It meant a whole lot more than I could understand then, and maybe even now. But I know that it stood for the very grandest of the grand. It was greatness, all symbolized in a flag.
Of course, there was that phrase, "under God." My mother had taught me to reverence that name. That was definitely a big part of the glory of America, in my mind then. And it still is today. There's a power in that flag. It represents everything valuable to the human race.
Not everyone thinks that way, of course. I realized a long time ago that the armed services were the only havens for patriotism in America, (they and the car salesmen's lots). Only the military encouraged the kind of character worthy of association with Old Glory.
When I was teaching at OSU (OKC campus), and realized my students had no concept of patriotism, that's when I decided to go on the war path, so to speak, and to preach patriotism (for which I was dismissed). I remember one student saying, "Dr. Yeagley, we don't have a clue." I had asked a simply question, What does patriotism bring to mind? "Old people," he said, "veterans." Later, I learned that a lot of students associated patriotism with skin heads, neo-Nazis, militia, etc. The word brought apprehension of violence, and marginal people. On the OSU-OKC campus, patriotism meant bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance.
These were staggaring and disappointing revelations to me. Has the American public become so politicized by media, so self-conscious and fearful because of the ACLU, that people are divorced from their own national symbol? Are they afraid to be proud of their country? Is it a sin to love the nation of one's birth?
In a way, the only place I can go to feel the glory again, to luxuriate in the greatest of the American flag, is at an Indian pow-wow. There Indians honor the flag with unadulterated respect. Indians feel the glory. No, not every Indian has read the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution; not every Indian is politically astute, articulate, and involved; not every Indian is aware of or comprehends the national issues ripping the people in shreds. But Indians feel the glory of the flag. Indians faithfully hoist the Stars and Stripes above the arena, next to an eagle staff, next to armed forces flags, next to POW flags.
Wes Study, Comanche Fair (2003) Grand Entry.
That American flag stands for so much! And Indians know it, intuitively. We all feel it, without question. We don't analyze it; we don't speculate, or comment on it. We just know it.
So, today, I offer Indian respect on America's National Flag Day. It is the purest kind. It is a response to the power, and the glory. Indians identify with that power. Call it naive, childish, like I felt when I was in Kindergarten. Call it poetic, or even backward. Call it a reminiscence, a romantic notion of the past. Call it primitive religion. Magic. Totemism.
But just know that the American flag means something to Indians--something that many Americans have forgotten about. Indians still feel what many Americans have never felt.
Red Earth, OKC, 2003, Grand Entry.
In pristine irony, the mighty law enforcement agencies of ultra-liberal Los Angeles have descended upon a group of "urban" farmers, evicting them from their inner city paradise in LA. Some 120 enforcement officials (deputies of the Sheriff's Department) moved in on the 'demonstrating' farmers, among whom were porn star Daryl Hannah. Some 20 demonstrators had chained themselves to trees in the garden, including veteran environmental activist tree-sitters Julia Butterfly Hill and John Quigley. Seven people were arrested.
Daryl Hannah
It seems this situation has been brewing for some time. There is a 14-acre spot of land that was left vacant and underdeveloped, after the 1992 race riots. Later, some 350 families (mostly illegal immigrant Mexicans) started farming the area for produce. It is the ultimate liberal haven, as actor Danny Glover advocated the world custom of inner city farming. It was the perfect set up. The perfect cause. The race riots (started by American Negros resentful first of the Rodney King verdict, then of immigrant Korean small business owners) left many groceries destored. The 'third world' war zone was redeemed by the heroic Mexican farmers, ever ready to work, to stay poor, and to become the cause of liberal saviors. Indeed.
John Quigley spent over 2 months living
in a tree house to save the tree.
Los Angeles took over the property by eminent domain from developer Ralph Horowitz in the 1980's. The city was going to make an incinerator on it, but the black people in the area objected. The city later gave the propterty to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, and let people start gardening on it. Horowitz of course has always tried to get the property back. Now that real estate in the area has essentially tripled, he was sure to get it. He sued, and won. He was willing to sell it, again, for $16.3 million, but the farmers fund-raising could only come up with $10 million. Horowitz wants to build a huge warehouse on the property. As he is the private owner, it is his option. The city had forced him to sell originally at $4.8 million. The city sold it back to him for $5 million.
The man has been jerked around, no doubt. Yet, it is such a perfect irony. All the liberals of LA are trying to fend for the illegal Mexicans and their inner city garden paradise, and yet hard core business rules. Property ownship is the issue. An American citizen, Mr. Ralph Horowitz, has been knocked around by the city, but has finally regained his property.
Yes, everyone would expect a Jew in Los Angeles to be liberal, loving, and all that. But, what about the principle of private land ownership? It looks like Mr. Ralph Horowitz is some kind of patriot hero, really. This isn't about greed versus charity. This is about an American citizen's right to own property. No wonder the liberal Commies hate him. Listen to his NPR interview. The "innocent" farmers have been working against Horowitz for a long time. Why, they were even "trained" in civil disobedience. What a Marxist fest this was! What 'brotherhood' they had!
Well, good for Ralph Horowtiz. Even if he is a millionaire Brentwood developer. Private property lives! Let the American government take a lesson in American values. Foreigners don't own the country just by planting onions.
Is it inevitable that giant corporations are going to turn out hypocritical, duplicitous, and generally scoundral-like in their corporate behavior? After all, it's only men who run the companies.
Men like Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, who's been talking up corporate integrity these days on the news. Why, it is a deep moral concern whether Google should operate half-mast in China, being disallowed from listing anything the Chinese government finds objective. Google has already agreed not to offer e-mail or blogging. That's way too "free" for China. (Remember China censored Pamela Anderson's bare-back photo in 2004.)
Sergey Brin and Prakash Bang (Managing Director
of WebSource Technologies Limited)
So Mr. Brin confesses before the world the deep moral compromise, the wrestling of conscience, the profound concern of Google, Inc. that weighs upon the wondrous American internet enterprise. How can they do this? How can they put themselves in such a slimy position--of allowing themselves to be censored in China?
"We felt that perhaps we could compromise our principles but provide ultimately more information for the Chinese and be a more effective service and perhaps make more of a difference," Brin said.
Oh, really?
Well, it was in fact Google that banned American citizens from expressing their views about Islam. It was Google that censored TheNewMediaJournal.us for allowing people to criticize Islam. (As of this date, however, the NewMediaJournal publication, "Islam: A False Religion" is listed under the Google search.) And it was MSN Hotmail that first pulled the plug on Amil Imani's private e-mail account (though I understand this service has been restored also). Has Google forgotten about this already? Does Google expect that everyone else is going to forget? Talking about freedom and principles! Fancy that.
Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders
of Google.
It is abundatly clear that the only principle corporations honor are the principle of profit. No morality, no ideology, and certainly no nationality guides the devoted marketer. They censor others (for fear that they might lose money in a legal suit), and then get upset when someone censors them. They act as if they are in two different worlds, and that they can live differently in each.
Perhaps this is why my article, "The New Crusader" has not been published anywhere but BadEagle.com. No one wants to offend Google, lest his web site suffer censorship. Business is guided by profit, and fear of legal suit. (After all, court has become Amerifca's new national pass time. It is the new entertainment venue. It is the new gambling machine. File a case. You might win! Companies beware, indeed. This is what it's come to.)
It is a pitiful thing, to boast of principle when openly trespassing. It seems, however, to be the human experience. It seems inevitable. We're trapped in some sort of profound hypocrisy. We have learned from history that principle is strong, and it lasts, yet, in our very striving to build on it, we find ourselves fallen from it. It seems that any form of social abstraction, such as a medium of exchange, such as money, invitably leads to other disconnects between our intents and our actual deeds.
Is freedom of speech really the issue? Shouldn't it be 'freedom of finance?' People want to make money. The law says there are certain things you can do, and certain things you can't do. Society simply cannot live without law. The social body will disintegrate into anarchy, then the cruelest of tyrants will emerge. Only law and law enforcement prevent this. Speech is only one of many ways to make money. Politics is about making money. Even religion, as most organizations practice it, is about money. Freedom to make money--that is the concern, not freedom of speech. That's a facade. Our whole Constitution has been made a cloak of dissembling pretense.
My Comanche uncle use to laugh and scoff. "Freedom of religion?! Hell, they came over to rob ya, and to steal your land!!" This he said, as a decorated Marine officer of the Pacific theatre, WWII. He had an objective view of things, and loved the idea of competition. "Would you really want it any other way?" he said to me once.
So, again, freedom to make money, freedom to prosper, that has become the American dream. As long as that is open, freedom of religion is really on the back burner. That will slip right out of our hands, as long as our hands are filled with dollars.
"Annie Get Your Gun" Coulter is under severe attack of late. But it's all an illusion. She hasn't said anything different, or anything she hasn't already said for some time. She's always been shooting it up with more gusto than most. This time, however, she just hit a particularly sensitive, naked target. Thus the insipid vituperatives of the Left fly in her face, and their vapid harangues are hurled at her in an incessant barrage of gangland media "drive-by" machine gun fire. It is a real harpie fest, and this time Ann seems to have inadvertently, temporarily, given the guise of dignity to the offended. What she said is so true, and it hurts so badly, that Ann simply must be Coulter the Cruel. She must be the model of meanness, with a "massive chip" on her shoulder.
Ann Coulter
"The Witches of East Brunswick" she called a group of four widows who have made political activist careers out of their husbands' deaths in the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. They have become professional protesters of all things Republican, and all things Bush. They are Sheehanites, parading their grief for gain. Ann says hundreds and thousands of people lost their spouses, their children, their loved ones, on 9/11. They aren't making a political career out of it. Who are these millionaire women to be so shameless?
Ann protests the use of victims to validate special political positions--especially those positions designed to undermine President Bush, the Republicans, the conservatives, and America in general. Victimhood does not validate, anymore than the American military uniform guarantees patriotism in the person who wears it. (Ask Murtha, Kerry, or General Wes.) This is all theatrics.
(Three of the "witches" with the grand dam, Nancy Pelosi.)
In this 2004 photo, 9/11 widows Lorie Van Auken,
Patty Casazza and Kristin Breitweiser accept award from
Rep. Nancy Pelosi D-Calif,., left, in red suit, at Glamour
Magazine's "Women of the Year" awards. (GETTY)
But Ann's criticism of the four widows represents the arch-typical offense of the conservative: to strip naked the most pretentious facade. To expose the manipulation, to identify the truth behind the deception, this is the most hurtful, unbearable offense of all. For this, the liberals must condemn Ann Coulter with every artificial, mimicked forumla of moral denunciation their distorted, self-deceived souls can usurp. This is their last stand.
It's woman against woman. Hilary had to chime in, to gain a few illusionary moral points. (Who knows more about womanly victimhood than her, right?) A "vicious, mean-spirited attack" she said of Ann's portrayal of truth. Yes, that's right. It doesn't matter whether what Ann said is true or not. It matters that it embarrassed the Witches. It hurt them, to be thus exposed. It humiliated them. It offended them. And thus Ann is evil. Whenever the liberal can use the word "offended," they have achieved (in their minds--and those without minds) the moral high ground.
Got that? If the truth offends, then forget that truth. The important thing is not to offend a liberal. They simply cannot and will not take it. They will flood the world with tears of compassion--for themselves. (Their tyranny on the world ensues.) They demand that their tears be cherished. They make laws to lionize their offendedness. Nothing is more immoral than to expose their lies.
But the tall blonde wins. As people think, (whenever that's possible), it will become quite clear that the American hero at home is Ann Coulter. She is not afraid. The tall, blonde patriot's most touching portrayal of love of country just happens to be an essay on the Confederate battle flag (How to Talk to a Liberal, pp.203-211).
She is a bit tired of the deceptive, manipulative, lying liberal, however, and understandably so. It is a matter of perpetual frustration. There is no reasoning with such people. Ann has written about it, demonstrated it, and displayed it over and over. They are not on the wave-length of truth, and her words are lost on them.
In all this, however, I must say, there is one liability: in her extraordinary, articulate exposure of the Left phenomenon, she may create the illusion that they Left operates on a level of intelligent stratagem far beyond what they actually do. For some years she has attributed their disposition to a substitute religious faith. (David Horowitz hinted at this in 2000, The Art of Political War, p.192; Coulter dramatize it in 2002, in Slander, pp.190-194.) But this isn't exactly the case.
First of all, this use of faith, as an explanation for mindless emotionalism of the Left, implies the absense of reason. That is certainly not always the case in true believers in true religion. That use of faith as an explanation of the Left also implies reason is the domain of the unfaithful, the non-religious. Believers are not therefore required to use reason. But this just isn't so either.
Secondly, this explantion implies a certain equality of lies and truth. This attributes at least a chronological ambiguity to the order of events here, as if lies precede truth, as if precedence is preeminence. This isn't true. The leech never precedes the host. The parasite never evolves first.
A different metaphor is needed. The Liberal system of thought is simply organic, not strategic. It is indeed like a parasite, a leech, or a mirror. It is wholly dependendent on what is. It cannot create, it can only live off what already exists. The illusion of intelligence rests wholly on biological analogy. Life appears to be wonderously intelligent, but it isn't. It is simply life. It is intelligent appearing, by design. It did not design itself. Neither did Marxism, Leftism, Liberalism, socialism, or any other such movement dependent for its existence on trying to change the dreaded "status quo."
No, liberalism isn't a substitute for religious faith. It is an organic parasite. It needs no intelligence or stratagem. It is a phenomenon of nature. Can one reason with a lower form of life? Can one converse with bacteria?
If Ann is upset with her attackers, she should just remember that they are living off her. This is the price of speaking out successfully, being a published author, national commentator, etc. In her recent responses to her critics, I think she does show that she is upset, but, she needn't be. She need remember her own words: the liberals do not and dare not think. She cannot communicate with them. They are Pavlov dogs. They salivate with each sentence from her. They intensify their victimhood with each word Ann speaks. This is mechanical.
Mass murderer of innocents, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, is now himself dead, apparently killed in a coalition air raid not far from Baghdad. He who delighted in mayhem, in a psychosis, in delusion, is now removed from the affairs of earth--in which affairs he proved himself most unworthy.
Mass murderer, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, died in ineffable infamy.
Others have demonstrated the same satanic spirit, the same delight in violence, torture, murder, and cruelty. Others have orchestrated the mass murder of civilians. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and a host of others. (I know Ukranians today who testify that the Russians made Hiter's Nazis look like just a bunch of bad boys.) This social anomaly of destruction, however, is particularly associated with Adolf Hitler, because he went at it with such elevated motivation, such scientific purpose and reason.
Today, we are all left with the impression that Hitler's rage was all about Jews. But we know Nazis hated a lot more people than just the Jews. Therefore, there are some critics who say that the modern image of the Jewish Holocaust is dominant simply because Jewish people today have made it such. But can Jews be blamed for that? Other people have the same opportunity to dramatize their misfortunes. Why haven't they? Why are the Jews successful?
Adolf Hitler, early in the reign of scientific satanism.
Perhaps it is because of the Judeo-Christian foundations of western society. Perhaps in such an environment the significance of the persecution of the Jews is naturally greater in irony, greater in wrong. There were Jews in China since 200 AD, and well established by 1000, but they were never dominant there, nor was Christianity. Therefore, the Jewish Holocaust is not a dominant them in Chinese culture.
But is Al-zarqawi to be distinguished from Hitler after all? What difference does motivation or methodology make? Mass murder of civilians, women and children, is simply mass murder of innocents. The only real difference between the two maniacs is that Hitler tried to benefit from the murder of masses. There was a scientific, economic, futuristic motive. Al-zarqawi's mania is nearly purposeless, except for a religious motive. But that motive is so low, so primitive, so psychotic, that Al-zarqawi's methods need no refinement. Blood is the only desire. There is no advancement of Islam in the world through mass murder.
Westpointer, James William Forsyth (b.1838); as Colonel, ca. 1890, when at Wounded Knee.
I must say, both Hitler and Al-zarqawi are greatly distinguished from Col. James Forsyth, the officer in charge at the massacre of Wounded Knee. The circumstances are fundamentally diffrerent. In 1880's and '90's, Sioux were still coming in off the battle field. The wars were just ending. The Seventh Cavalry had seen much Indian terror in their day, and so had Forsyth. The 7th Cavalry was assigned the task of rounding up Indians in the Dakotas, and their yellow-knife bones were still trembling with fear and rage. When the Indians went Ghost Dancing, the army flipped out. The very thought that the Indians were uprising set off the army into a terrorist, murderous defense.
Arapaho Ghost Dance, terrorizing if you didn't
know them, and you figured they would slice your
throat given the chance.
See the difference? Americans were terrified by Indians! Indians were warriors. Indians had, in defense of our homes and lands, killed many, many white people. We were called to such a task. White people feared us. Massacres such as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek are just demonstrations of how much Indians were feared. "Kill 'em all!" was the only response of any military involved. They could scarcely help their reaction.
Jews hadn't killed Germans. What threat had they posed?
And what Muslims were killed en mass by white westerners in modern times? Why the Muslim rage? Why the mass murder of not only non-Muslims, but also of Muslims?
It is Satan. The great Satan, indeed. Any person who plots and plans the mass murder of people--women and children especially--is simply satanic. There is no other explanation. It is pure evil. Islamic murderers bring no advancement or benefit. Hitler's "advances" were dilusionary. The US Army's attacks on Indians were in the interest of America. But Indians were just in the way. There was no historical precedent for mass extermination. Indians weren't even the enemy, at first. This Indian/White business was a geographical car wreck, nothing more. The Nazi thing, and the Islamic thing, are true road rage.
They say grace, the grace of God, is the most powerful force in this present world. I suppose only those who are desperate will ever know the real meaning of that word, grace. (Would God we all knew of our own desperations!) I want to say something about this today. It is simply to beautiful to pass by.
The pastor of the church I attend is Rick Dye. He has a beautiful tenor voice which I find very convincing. He sings solos now and then, in superb taste, even though the music is in the simple, popular vein--something I normally eschew. Pastor Dye is able to convey one of the most meaningful expressions of godly love, of pure spiritual life, that I have ever witnessed. It humbles me greatly to admit it, but, the love I have experienced, in song, in a simple, unrefined environment, in a mainstream popular-style song, is on a level of poetry and beauty reserved for the great artists of the world. This is...outrageous.
The song I think of is called "The Refiner's Fire," words and music by Jon Mohr and Randall Dennis. Some one, some human being, somwhere in this world, was clearly touched by the grace of God. The power is present in this song. It is...magic, perhaps. Circumstancial? Why this song? There have been hundreds of thousands written, at all levels of expression, from oratorio to folk song. This one works on me. That's all I can say. This one has a special power. Perhaps it is because I heard it, for the first time, as my mother was living her last years, and I was so burdened with care for her. I don't know the reason this song, and this pastor, have such power on me. I seek to know. It is phenomenal, the kind of thing that demands inquiry.
The Refiner's Fire
There burns a fire with sacred heat
White hot with holy flame
And all who dare pass through its blaze
Will not emerge the same
Some as bronze and some as silver
Some as gold, then with great skill
All are hammered by their sufferings
On the anvil of His will
The refiner's fire
Has become my soul desire
Purged and cleansed and purified
That the Lord be glorified
He is consuming my soul
Refining me, making me whole
No matter what I may lose
I choose the refiner's fire.
I'm learning now to trust His touch
To crave the fire's embrace
For though my past with sin was etched
His mercies did erase!
Each time His purging cleanses deeper
I'm not sure I'll survive
Yet the strength in growing weaker
keeps my soul alive!
These words, combined with the melody, are as close to joy in suffering that I have ever known. I can scarcely understand my attraction to it. I'm tired of suffering. I'm weary of agony after agony, physically and emotionally. It has been a life of burdens. And that's just in my personal life, let alone those with whom I vicariously identify and empathize constantly. I have literally given my life to other people's sufferings. I have sought Christ in the lonely, writhing miseries of others. In the voice of woe, indeed, I ever hear His voice calling. I can even remember saying this to a friend of mine when I was in divinity school. "I want to know what Christ died for."
Yet, I cannot bear the words of this song. It is as if the fountain of my soul is broken open. I want to run away from it. It is almost frightening.
But what really made me post on this matter today was something I simply could not resist. It was a testimony of a converted man. He says his name is Rick, and he was a former homosexual. He says he had lived a life of perversion, but that he is now "redeemed by the blood of the Lamb." He is married with children, and grandchildren now, and he has created a blog, called the Crimson Chronicle, "dedicated to helping those who struggle with addictions and idolatry and pointing the way to the only One who can change you," that is, Jesus.
I have never expirienced homosexuality, nor the inclination theretoward. But, I have known homosexuals and something of the ineffable unhappiness and misery within them, and their feelings of abject lostness, which no public campaign of justification can heal, and no national legislation can remedy. But Mr. Rick has a message of hope that can change them. This is indeed divine. Every slave of vice needs to hear about such a deliverance.
That such a man would also choose the very song that so moves me, and post it's message, simply drew me over the edge. I have to write about this today. I know it is personal, and I beg the indulgence of my national readers. Remember, to whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much. Sure, some of us haven't had it nearly as bad as others, but then our hearts should go out to those very people, no?
When I was at Yale Divinity, I remember many discussions about the Apocalypse, Armaggedon, the Anti-Christ, and the End of the World. Most of the discussions were carried on with great scoffing, of course, which is the academic, scholarly way of handling anything as naked and emotional as true "belief." What I did learn in all that was something about religious sociology. I became familiar with Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium (1961), and the fact that many people in Europe believe the end of the world would come in the year 999 or 1000 AD. A few years after Yale, when I began work in American Studies at Harvard, I became familiar with more "end times" work, such as A Shopkeepers Millenium, by Paul Johnson (1978), and even some off-track primary sources like Charels Mackay's Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions (1841). World wars, comets, plagues, Muslims (--or Mongols before that), earthquakes, tidal waves, the fate of the Jews and Jerusalem, all of these giant disturbances have always excited great concern about the end of the world. Radical dissolution of the cosmos is the natural counterpart to the ancient concept of creation ex nihilo. The universe came into being, suddenly, from nothing. It is necessarily likely that it all can disappear, into nothing, just as suddenly. Such imagery is inevitable, and no doubt qualifies as a Jungian archetype of the Collective Unconscious.
I did finish a Yale Divinity degree, the Master of Divinity, but I never got along in a Harvard degree. However, I did culminate my brief study at Harvard in a book-length manuscript entitled, The End of the World: The Sociolocial Context of Adventism in Selected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe (1984). The 1830's and 1840's saw a world movement in piquant expectation of the cataclysmic end of the world and the return of Christ in the clouds of heaven. But what I had learned at Yale was also true. It seems that Christians have always believed the end of the world was near. It is a Christian doctrine, in fact, to believe such.
This kind of imagery is about the depth of most uninformed
people's feelings about the Millennium. It is gothic entertainment,
nothing more. "Quote the raven, "Nevermore."
I remember what my collegue (now Reverend) Ephraim Radner said back at the Yale: "The signs of Christ's return have always been present, since the day he ascended. They have always been urgent, and imminent." Radner, a somewhat controversial conservative Episcopalian priest, has long been concerned about schism in the church. Radner could never see the point in making a specific crisis out of the historical date of the end of the world. The Christian's attitude was to expect it, always. Any date setting only generated hysteria, insincerety, and a sick kind of commercialism.
Reverend Ephraim Radner
For the most part, during the last 2,000 years, this has been true, obviously. It appears that Jesus was pleased to ascend, and leave His followers in a state of seemingly concuspiscent expectation. He knew they expected Him to return right away. He let them believe this. Therefore, it is proper that the Christian believe this, always. It has to do with the effect of believing it, throughout life, much more than the momentary date of of His return.
The world today seems overcome with evil, fraud, violence, fear, and all the stuff of the Apocalypse. It would not be particularly improper to hope in the soon return of Christ at this time, would it? What difference does it make whether He does return soon or not? To the believing Christian, the time is ever present, ever near, and ever joyous. Popular commentary, of course, likes to think of itself as objective, even when avoiding blatant scoffery. But, such "objectivity" is meant merely to disengage fear. Should events actually culminate in the apocalypse, such commentary will prove worse than worthless, and fatal.
Belief is the act of the free will, not the verdict of imposed logic, nor the result of social pressure. To believe Jesus is returning soon, for the joy of it, is an essential element in Christian character. That one should expect the physical, bodily return of the Savior means one really believes He lived, died, and resurrected in the flesh!. One actually believes he took away the sin of the world, and that He obtained the privilege of eternal life for each person on earth. Otherwise, it's all a quaint, romantic fantasy, which one merely indulges in for comfort, guilt management, and self-healing. This is why a real belief in His soon return, His personal return, is competely vital to a Christian experience. If one does not believe this, one is not fully Christian. One is actually not Christian at all.
Law enforement certainly isn't a matter of routine. It is not some mechanical operation. Enforcement of the law occurs when there is an officer available who is willing to act, or when he can act, or when he must act. Law enforcement is a human operation, created and implemented by human beings who constantly make individual judgment calls, and who are as liable to err as any other human being, if not moreso.
So what are we to expect from an officer of the law? Most citizens, unfortunately, expect a super-human being, one who does not err, one who sees things as they are, and one who can be dependended upon always to do the right thing. In this, citizens greatly err. The agences of the law, from the single security officer to the court judge and his jury, are nothing but mortals. Their oaths do not impart to them any superior abilites, talents, or insights. Their training gives them little more than common sense, at best.
Polilce officers of Sardis City, Alabama. Officer Annette Floyd, Officer
Kenneth Ragan, Chief Mark Patton and Officer Chris Duke. Sardis has a
population of less than 2,000 people.
So why do we expect so much more from a police officer? It is because of what his badge represents: our social covenants--our agreements on how we shall live together. He is employed to enforce those agreements. He is the symbol of that mysterious wall between peace and terror. He is all that lies between us and chaos. Our laws mean absolutely nothing unless they are enforced. He alone enforces them. This is our agreement. Society has employed the law officers for this purpose, rather than everyone enforcing the law himself. A third party has been agreed upon.
And we see, however, that the officer cannot be at all places at all times. We see, unfortunately, how often the laws are not enforced. We all see, moreover, how often frivilous citations are written. We see that law enforcement apparently involves chance, convenience, and bias. We see that law enforcement comes from the hands of erring, faulty, normal human beings. We react in outrage and disgust. In so many cases, the image of the officer is odious. We loath the sight of him. His presence means an useless aggravation, and a costly intrusion of some kind, a traffic ticket, a noise complaint, or some other "interpreted" law. It so often seems like a trivial, virually meaningless offense which, however, if not responded to in the prescribed manner, can quite possibly result in imprisonment of perfectly descent citizens. On the other hand, blatant, arrogant defiance of the law--by foreigners, or domestics, can be completely ignored by all law enforcement, if the circumstances require it, or if it seems too inconvenient or impossible to apprehend the offender.
Justice all too often becomes a matter of luck. Injustice becomes a matter of sheer chance. There is no way for citizens ever to expect a consistent, dependable system of law enforcement. Yet, this faulty operation is all we have. Weak and human as it is, there is nothing else.
We can only hope for some larger, deeper, and better motivation in the people. We need some greater impetus. In a way, we can only hope that true religion may have its work on the hearts of the people. Without a sufficient reason for law, there is no respect for it. Our day has seen less respect for the law, as more and more people transgress, from the arrogant, illiterate Mexican peasant to the professional 'public servant' in Washington. Has America indeed seen a devaluation of divine law, of the most essential human restraint?
Let the restraint imposed by the divine law be wholly cast aside, and human laws would soon be disregarded. Because God forbids dishonest practices, coveting, lying, and defrauding, men are ready to trample upon His statutes as a hindrance to their worldly prosperity; but the results of banishing these precepts would be such as they do not anticipate. If the law were not binding, why should any fear to transgress? Property would no longer be safe. Men would obtain their neighbor's possessions by violence, and the strongest would become richest. Life itself would not be respected. The marriage vow would no longer stand as a sacred bulwark to protect the family. He who had the power, would, if he desired, take his neighbor's wife by violence. The fifth commandment would be set aside with the fourth. Children would not shrink from taking the life of their parents if by so doing they could obtain the desire of their corrupt hearts. The civilized world would become a horde of robbers and assassins; and peace, rest, and happiness would be banished from the earth. E.G. White, The Great Controversy (1888), p.585.
In a day when the people have less and less respect for an unworthy American leadership, our law enforcement agencies should keep in mind that they in fact serve the people. They are not lords over the people. Officers of the law should engender respect, and a positive regard for the law. Yet, their profession is perilous by nature, and they often react on virtually innocent citizens in the full wrath of frustration that should have been spent on the true offender, the true threat to society. (It's called "displacement," in psychology.) Unfortunately, many officers allow themselves to be become a despicable menace. Their presence becomes pestilential, unappreciated, unwanted, and ineffective.
This is the liability. This image is what each officer must guard against. Yes, the officer is sworn to uphold and enforce the law, but why? For the good of the people. The law is for the good of the people. Therefore, the motivation for enforcing it must always be for the good of the people. This is most difficult an attitude to maintain, when dealing daily with those who have no respect for the law, for other people, or for themselves.
We must pray for our officers, for the courts. This is all we have. They make terrible, devastating mistakes, but, society has given them that power. This is power: the power to err, greatly. We cannot despise them when they fail. Even if we are personally the victim of permanent damage from the inexperience, immaturity, arrogance, or just plain stupidity on the part of any officer of the law, we should bear the cross, should we not?
Was he wrong for wanting to be a police officer? The job existed. Society offered it. Human weakness comes with the office. We should never expect anything more, or other.
We can be thankful for oceans. So far they've provided better border control than the U.S. government. But the Africans are getting wise to the sea.
The "tide" of African "illegal trespassers" is increasing every year, invading all the continents, by sea. They particularly aim for Europe and the Americas. The media is now calling them "migrants," migrating across the sea. (Media has no standard of word meaning. Liberalism is all about word usurpation. Mexicans migrate by foot, at will, with exact geographic goals in mine. Africans simply pile in a boat, set out adrift, not really knowing where they're headed. That's called "migrating" now.)
Somalis caught by Arab slavers and smugglers. Smugglers charge between $30
and $100 for passage to Yemen, and pack between 80 and 200 people onto fishing
boats for the trip. Some are caught at sea by the Yemeni Coast Guard and jailed
back in Boosaaso. Evelyn Hockstein for The New York Times
The reports are ominous now. The NewYorkTimes reports of Somali miserables washing ashore on Yemen, to be scooped up by Arab slavers and murderous smugglers. Africans from Senegal and Mali are shipping out these days to the Canery Islands (south of Spain). Some 1,300 have died, while over 4,000 have been captured, this year. Africans from Nigeria, Cameroon and Ghana are on the same track. " 'Immigrate or die, that is their motto,' Alioune Tine, secretary-general of the Senegal-based African human rights group RADDHO, told Reuters in an interview this week." They usually try to hit some part of Europe. Africans from Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast tried to reach Italy a couple of years ago; 26 died. A Yahoo AP report today (June 1, 2006) says a boat full washed ashore on Barbados, in the Caribbean. I'd call that close to home. (Note: Yahoo AP reports are often found no where else, and they often disappear within minutes.) The young men aboard were from Senegal.
What a romantic tale. Everyone in the Third World is just so miserable, so torn by war, starved by poverty, and sick with AIDS from indiscriminate sexual habits, that they are quite willing to risk it all, just to get somewhere else, where white people are, where there is a better life. This is the objective view of these reports. Anything is better than where they are. Well, where is better than where they are, better than the Third World? White Christian countries, countries that were established on different social values.
In this May 1, 2006 file photo, police and forensic experts inspect a boat in Bridgetown,
Barbados, where 11 bodies were found in the cramped cabin of the unnamed 20-foot
boat which had been adrift about 80 miles off Barbados. An investigation of the case
points to the probability that those on board had been African migrants bound for Spain's
Canary Islands, but who went off course, drifting across the Atlantic ocean.
AP Photo/Chris Brandis
And yet lying liberals delight to proclaim that the white Christian countries are the cause of misery among the dark. The darkies have a divine right to throw their lives down in the desert, or across the sea, and to come to the Christian whites. Isn't this rather obvious? It is pitiable at this point. The Third World, so corrupt, so full of tyrants, war lords, drug cartels, slavers, and other enriched riff-raff, is very pleased to see the bottom of their social dregs hit Europe and America. This is a wonderful achievement in their minds. It is to be encouraged.
Yet, such "migrations" are the most powerful testimony there is to the failure of the Third World, where people multiply mindlessly, carelessly, foolishly, and can't seem to reason from cause to effect. The concept of self-control does not exist, apparently. Having children is mistakenly associated with living, with advancing, with prosperity, or some such idiotic notion. They suffer daily and constantly from overpopulation and its attendant horrors, yet, no one seems to be able to communicate to them that a change of life values is obviously in order.
Liberals have incessantly tried to dignify the Mexican desperados and bandidos as "immigrants" or "migrants." Trespassing is a natural, evolutionary process. Demographic change is unavoidable. So now the Left must call the African suicidals "immigrants" and "migrants" too. The heart-breaking prospect of shoving your friends and relatives in a leaky boat, setting out to sea without chart or compass, is a noble, natural acti of migration.
Leftists must be murderers at heart. To encourage such suicide, to romanticize such destitution, for the sole purpose--not to help the lost--but to gain political power, is surely complicite to mass murder. These hordes of the lost are used by the lying liberals, plain and simply. These most misfortunate are so helpless they are literally casting themselves out to sea, in the hopes of being found and cared for. They care nothing for their lives. Life has not cared for them.
The problem is, many of them care nothing for anyone else's live, either. Cruelty is malignant. That's part of what's wrong with Wrong. It's spreads.
But the Third World is not some Frankenstein creation of the Christian west, bound about the neck like a haunting guilt piece. Rudyard Kipling already explained that in "The White Man's Burden" (1899). He made it clear that the white Christian duty was to bring light to the dark side, to redeem ignorant, to sacrifice all to uplift the fallen. But he also recognized that it was hopeless. It was merely the duty of the white Christian to work for the betterment of the darkies. It wasn't something that was to be expected to turn out well.
It certainly hasn't. There are those who have done their duty, nonetheless. They have done much good. The liberals, on the other hand, not only expect the Christian West to "share the wealth" with the unworthy, but also don't want to see the unworthy become worthy. That is the difference between the traditional white Christian missionary, and the liberal savior of today. The liberal likes to capitalize on the misery of others, while justifying himself by condemning Christian achievers.