Do we care that hundreds of Lebanese "civilians" have been killed in the war now? The media is certainly making a big show of it, and trying to make everyone think it is a terrible thing. Is it?
The wondrous leaders of the Islamic world don't think so. They have made it quite clear that they do not value life--anyone's life. They in fact value killing life. They delight in murdering as many people as possible. So a few hundred Lebanese civilians are slaughtered. What's that to Islam? Why don't they just declare them all martyrs? Everyone should rejoice. They're in heaven now, right? Never mind whether they are civilians or not. That doesn't matter. (They are complicit with Hezbollah, to all appearances.)
How dare Muslims leaders incite death for all, then decry it at the same time! How dare Hezbollah effectively plot the death of civilians--on both sides of the border--then lament Lebanese deaths as tragic!
Weeping Lebonese woman, witnessing a mass funeral for slaughter Lebonese "civilians."
Why are they crying? Aren't they martyrs rewarded in heaven? Who's kidding whom?
It's okay for Hezbollah to send thousands of rockets over Israel, indiscriminantly--in fact intentionally, purposely, murderously--not on military installments, but on villages, towns, and cities. It's okay to kill Israelis, especially because Israelis value life, intensely. And Israel doesn't hide military units among its civilians, like the murderous Muslims do. Hebollah and Hamas are not targeting Israeli military forces. They are targeting Israeli civilians. What kind of 'holy war' is that?
So the Muslims murderers hide amongs their Muslims "brothers," and fire purposely at Israeli civilians. Israel fires upon the murderers and their rockets, and Lebanese civilians get hit. Israel tries to be as careful as possible, drawing out the war for days, when it has the power to end it very quickly. Israel tries to avoid hitting civilians, warns them for weeks to move out, but the Muslims murderers either hasn't let them go, or deceived them into staying. The civlians take hits. (After Qana, they are ready to move, it seems.)
So who cares? Islamic leaders don't care. They love it. The Muslims murderers don't care. They revel in it. It seems like Israel is the only one that does care, after all. Otherwise this mess would have been over the second or third day. The Islamiacs think it's an eternal victory if they can make just one more person hate Israel, if they can make anyone hate Jews just a little more!
This is apparently the truth. The Arab leaders and Arab media, dramatizing the deaths of civilians, pleading for world sympathy, condeming Israel for such brutality, such inhuman slaughter--these leaders are the biggest liars of modern times. Islam is responsible, directly, for the slaughter of its own people, whenever it happens. They are liars and hypocrites as well. They don't deserve to live. They delight in slaughter and death.
Islam should be jailied. Boycotts, sanctions, isolations, everything that the world can do to take these Islamic countries out of circulation, out of communion with the rest of the world, this is the only solution. Islamic leaders have demonstrated, for decades, that they are irrational, demonic, and that they love death--especially death for everyone but themselves.
What evil spell holds them all so abjectly? What Satanic verses mesmerize the Muslims that they can't see the lethal intent of their leaders?
Let not a single non-Muslim be fooled by the lamentations of the Lebanese. Their own kind have done this to them. Islamic leaders have done this to them. If they harden their hearts against this truth, they will only find more destruction and death upon them. The black hole of Islam is aborbing them all into a horrible abyss. It is damnation before our eyes. And now we can understand why the Bible contains some of the language it does when it comes to the demonic enemies of Israel. 185,000 Assyrian troops dropped dead one night, while they were awaiting to attack Jerusalem the next morning. (2 Kings 19:35). Must have been a lot of weeping mothers back in Ninevah, but there's not one word of sympathy in the Bible, not in this life, anyway.
Who cares about the deaths of Muslims in southern Lebanon? These demoniacs have crossed the line. They have chosen an inexorable position of self-anathema. Sympathy for them is pointing a gun to your own head. Muslims lie, and not only Arabs die, but a lot of other people--from sympathy. We must determine not to be weakened by unworthy tears. The worthy will find their own way out. The unworthy are only a curse to themselves and to the world. It can be lethal to sympathize. The Lebanese sympathized with Hezbollah.
Arabs have been using each other for centuries. Now they're trying to bring the whole world into their pit of blood feuds. Iran's idiotic notion that they can unite Arabs is just an example of Iran trying to use Arabs. Islam is destroying the Middle East. It is a deranged mind-set. It destroys human trust and human sympathy, because it uses them for its own satanic purposes.
And let's not have too much sympathy for the "American citizens" that were over there when the war started. Most of them were Lebonese-Americans--newly immigrated. It was a big expense to get them out. They should never be allowed to go back, or else, America has to provide travel expenses for everyone else who wants to visit their "homeland"--at least the return ticket.
This is where logic leads. The world is under attack by Islam. Why deny it? Why pretend it isn't happening? liberals can deny it, and insist on indulging everyone's "human rights." Liberals can indulge their superior self-righteous tolerance all they want. May they each have the opportunity to exercise their righteousness in an Iranian prison.
In the meantime, the world needs to seriously consider an effective boycott of Islam. But the world won't. America's enemies, like Russia, China, N.Korea, and much of Latin America, will only befriend the Islamic countries. They all see a grand vision of ending America, of ending American values in the world, of ending America's accomplishments. America's charity and good will have made these dogs the sizable misanthropes they are. This is the reward of American developement of the world. This is the white man's burden, as Rudyard Kipling would say, to give all you have to uplift, to enlighten, to better the world, only to have it spit back in your face, with a nuclear fury.
A 31-year-old Pakistani Muslim shot six Jewish people, killing one, at the Jewish Federation building, 2031 Third Avenue, in downtown Seattle, Washington. It happened Friday, July 28, 2006, around 4:00 pm. The man has a criminal record, yet is a U.S. citizen. He doesn't even live in Seattle, but Pasco. (Of course, initial main stream media reports, like ABC, the New York Times, and even the Helena Independed Record, kept all this out of the story, reporting only the shootings and the wounded.)
"I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel," he announced, before he started shooting. And was it a coincidence that all six of the victims, one fatal, were women?
Seattle police seize the murderer, and take
him into custody. KING5 TV
But the word is out now. It was a horrible hate crime. A murderous hate crime. It wasn't even the typical suicidal mass murder hate crime. No bombs, no IEDs, just a gun--which hasn't even been identified yet. The man went in and out of the building, called police saying he had hostages, etc. It was clearly a raw hate crime, unplanned, poorly orchestrated, and a classical example of 'race rage.'
Yes, there is a little back ground to consider. The Sunday before (July 23), thousands of people demonstrated in behalf of Israel. At Luther Burbank Park on Mercer Island, the public rallied in support of Israel's right to defend itself. More than 40 community organizations sponsored and support the event.
So, Mr. Nameless Muslim heard about it in Pasco? Pasco is a town of 32,000 people, across the Columbia River from Kennewick. It is some 200 miles from Seattle, deep in the opposite part of the state--the southwest. Was he there Sunday? Or was he in Seattle?
Medics rush one injured person to the waiting
ambulance. KING5 TV
Does this mean now that, if there is any kind of public favor, or even attention, given to Jewish Americans, the "mentally ill" Muslims are liable to come out of the woodwork, and shoot up the Jews? Must Jews go into hiding because of the Muslims in America? Are all Jews in the world unsafe now, because of the Muslim integration into all countries of the world? Jews have lived all over the world, since the late 8th century BCE. The Muslim immigrant invasion is recent. It is as if they really are out for the kill--the destruction of peace, and of everything western.
Is having so-called "good" Muslims around worth the risk, knowing that at any moment, "bad" Muslims hiding among them are likely to strike the sword, and murder innocent people? This is becoming a national outrage.
I have recommended deporting Muslims before, as have others. This is not an insult to "good" Muslims. It is simply a safety precaution, and sacrifices no American principles or values. It honors them. It's called the rights of nationhood. The right to defend ourselves. The American people of Seattle just demonstrated for Israel's right to defend itself. Doesn't America have the right to defend itself?
Freedom involved risk, yes, but it should never involved poor judgement or stupidity. It is impossible to examine each Muslim who immigrates, legally or illegally. Of course there are many who would never commit such satanic acts as murdering innocent people. But, the presence of Muslims causes a continual eroding of freedom and peace. Every terrorist act, ever incident of raw hate and murder, chips away at peace and security of the nation. Americans have the right to protect our peace and security. Muslims are simply a huge risk. It is time to deport them. No disrepect for them or for their religion, actually. It is simply a matter of national security. Our government well never act against the Muslims. The people, the patriots, must rise up and do it. Islam has been demonstrated as averse to everything America is and values. Islam has demonstrated itself as the enemy. It is untrustworthy and dangerous.
It is true that many Jewish people themselves would never support such a notion as deporting Muslims. Jewish people are known for tolerance. They need tolerance themselves, even in a Christian society. They cannot act against other minorities and foreign religions. But this is not to be interpreted as national policy. I don't believe America will act against the Jews. Jews needn't worry too much about America turning against them. America loves Jews. It is in the nature of the government and in the foundations of the country. Islam, however, is foreign and averse, dangerous and violent. To oust Islam from our shores is no insult or threat to Jewish people.
Miss Universe 2006 is, of course, Miss Puerto Rico. But did anyone stop to think, Is Puerto Rico a nation? Does 18-year-old Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza represent a nation at an international beauty pageant? Bad Eagle has protested before, about the matter of girls representing nations other than the ones they were born in and of, representing ethnicities which they simply are not. As in World Cup soccer, as in world pageants. It's no longer a national thing. Internationalism ends up making complete mockery of nationalism.
Zuleyka Jerris Rivera Mendoza. Not the best photo
but widely published.
But Miss Puerto Rico presents yet another interesting affront to the concept of nationhood. Puerto Rico is neither a state of the United States, nor an independent country. It is what's called a "commonwealth," of the United States, since 1952, in fact. Now, it is certainly not a new thing that Puerto Rican girls have entered international beauty pageants; but, maybe it's time to reconsider the propriety of it all, lest we be forced to consider the whole pageant as just another Leftist effort to obscure national boundaries of any kind.
Miss Mendoza doesn't favor statehood or independence for Puerto Rico. "I don't go for either stance," she said, yet she nonetheless defends Puerto Rico's separate status from the U.S. in the Miss Universe competition. (How else could she enter? She not only gets to avoid competing against America girls, but, in the absense stark Negroid features, she easily wins over much of the population of Puerto Rico. Why, Puerto Rico is "Spanish," not African, not mixed race. If there's a doubt, just talk to anyone who knows about Puerto Rico, and knows Puerto Ricans.)
A better photo,(AP Photo/Ann Johansson), but
the monocular strabismus is still apparent in her
left eye. Too picky? Hey, we're talking Miss
Universe here, not the girl next door.
In blatant irony, she says, "If we [Puerto Rico] were to compete as a normal state of the United States you would lose the charm of the beauty of Puerto Rico," she said. "Puerto Rican beauty ... is totally different from American beauty." Say that again. How's that? Let's see. Some kind of Spain Spanish, African (an enormous and mixed "creole" population--usually denied or lied about), and of course, the Taino, the famous "American Indian" group, early inhabitants of the island, essentially mixed out of existence--though organizational revivals are important today)--this is Puerto Rico. Mixed races have indeed produced some interesting, exotic looks. After all, that's a major factor in the pageant. Exotic looks. Totally different kind of beauty?
And Miss Mendoza had some other curious contributions to the pageant. She spoke in Spanish. Why? "Spanish is an extremely romantic language that can make any person fall in love with you," she said. "And that's what I wanted to create with the jury, to be able to make them fall in love through my native language."
First of all, bragging about Puerto Rican Spanish is like bragging about ebonic English. Secondly, if speaking a "foreign" language at the pageant is a point of advantage, then maybe all the girls should speak their "native" tongue. Let's hear some Swedish, some Hungarian, some Chinese, and some French. True, a lot of people in the world speak Spanish. (My Mexican friends always told me that eveyone speaks Spanish in heaven!) But Mendoza (also called Rivera--so which is it going to be?) says she intentionally spoke Spanish as a point of advantage. So, she wasn't prepared to speak English? After studying English for seven months, she decided she couldn't handle it, and if she tried to speak, it would count against her? She couldn't prepare an acceptance speech in perfect English, and memorize it? Instead, she thought she would flaunt the Spanish thing. Okay.
It's okay to practice ethnic chauvinism, especially in an international beauty pageant (which poses a number of girls who are not native of the country they represent), where the whole "contest" is about ethnicity, right?
In any other circumstance, it would be called "prejudice." It would be called racism, arrogance, even supremacist, etc., all the things that nationalists are accused of.
So, in Miss Puerto Rico, Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza, we have anti-nationalistic nationalism, profundly and historically mixed race, ethnic and linguistic chauvinism, all in the same package. That's a real tribute to definition, to order and clarity, to communication in general. (After all, Zuleyka is a communications major.) We have a young girl whose very name presents confusion and mixing. Reporters are calling her Rivera, rather than Mendoza. "Zuleyka" certainly doesn't sound or look Spanish. However, there's a Zuleyka's Kitchen in Jersey, run by Dominican (via Florida) Zuleyka Farro. Could this be a clue to the "mix"? Ah, but we have to include yet another name. Zuleyka Jerris Rivera Mendoza. (So why don't we throw in Giulianna, Sarah, or even Gretchen, as long as we're mixing everything possible.) "Zuleyka"...Greek? Swahili? Arabic?
"Physically, I have been told by modeling agencies and friends that I represent the consummate Latino look," she said. "Everything in my face expresses our heritage, our music and the wonderful mixes of races that we are."
Yes, yes. Spain left an awesome mark on the world, after the Arabs left a mark on them. It's enough to make one feel 'faint.'
Newly crowned Miss Universe Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza of Puerto Rico is carried
offstage by a security guard after fainting following a news conference at the Miss
Universe 2006 Pageant at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles in this July 23, 2006.
Gary Sunkin/Reuters
In a world of internationalism, globalism, mix-ism, I am deeply reassured by American Indians who value being who and what we are as Indians. We may be mixed up a bit, too, but, it wasn't our choice, and we certainly don't brag about it. We prefer being Indian, not "mixed," (even though there has been much inter-tribal mixing, especially when tribes were forced on reservations adjacent one another). As Morris Udall (Sr.) once said, "The Negro and his defenders today look to the time that the Negro will be assimilated in white society and all barriers and distinctions will seem to disappear. Not so with the Indian. The one big thing the Indian possesses is his pride in being an Indian. He doesn't wish to be other than an Indian." So be it.
Sitting Bull: "If God wanted me to be a white man,
He would have made me white."
Everyone was surprised when Koffi Annan got up from a dinner, ran to an international microphone and camera, and announced that Israel had "apparently deliberately targeted" a UN observation post in southern Lebanon. He was "shocked," he said, by the news of the hit.
Actually, no one should be surprised, either at the hit, or at Annan's rash reaction. (First of all, the reports of UN observer deaths range from two to three to four, so, we begin the story with uncertainty.) The UN says that their southern Lebanon post had called in at least ten times in six hours to inform Israel that the bombing was getting too close. (Well, maybe that was 7, or 8, or 9 times, in three, four, or five hours.)
Interestingly, we find that these UN peacekeeping observers "observed" a kidnapping of three Israeli soliders by Hezbollah back in October of 2000. That was less than a mile away from their post, right on the Lebanon/Israel border. UN Interim Forces in Lebanon spokesman, Timur Goksel, said "Even if the UN had been close enough to act, peacekeepers would never have intervened to prevent the abduction. If the people want to kill each other, you don't expect the UNIFIL soldiers to get in the middle of it and get killed too." (Okay, so what "peace" are they keeping?) A record of the UN investigation of their video tape of the abduction is on the internet. (It was a Hindu peacekeeping group then, as it apparently was this time.) Of course, the UN did not admit that it had a video of the abduction until nine months later.
I wonder what the UN peacekeepers "observed" this time, regarding the ambush of Israeli forces by Hezbollah--inside Israeli borders? Can we ask for another video tape?
Kofi Annan's reaction showed his true "colors." He cares not for Israel. He is a supporter of Third World roguery. He is essentially an enemy of freedom. The UN has always supported the completely fabricated, false, and illegal status of "Palestine" and "Palestinians." The UN has always condemned Israel. Kofi Annan has always defended the Arab Muslims, in relation to Israel.
The world clearly doesn't know what's going on in Israel's borders. The world clearly doesn't understand the UN policy and attitude toward Israel. The world clearly is unaware of the fact that UN peacekeepers are dangerous, unreliable, duplicitous, and generally cause wars, rather than keep peace.
The United Nations is held suspect by all but rogues, thugs, and other communist gangs (sometimes referred to as "governments and nations." There is a lot of gang-type literature against the UN, too. It is well-meaning, patriotic, but sometimes inhibited by it's own language, other times it can be informative and even eloquent. All in all, it is obvious that the United Nations has failed its every chartered purpose. It merely hinders the growth of freedom. It is an expensive lusus naturae of Communist ideology, and should really discarded by any nation serious about freedom.
Lebanon? Lebanon is not a nation, but a loosely connected, fragile coalition. Lebanon is paying a terrible price for allowing Hezbollah to house itself there. Lebonon is no friend of Israel. No true Muslim is. We're dealing with irreconcilable differences here, and murderous aggressors.
The UN is only a show place, a formal gathering. It has no teeth, and should never be allowed to have any. Now, NATO is different, slightly. With leaders like General Wesley Clark, we can be sure that the trigger will be pulled. We can know a quarter of a million Christians will have to flee their homeland, and thousands will be killed by Islamics. That's the story of Kosovo. (Well, that's the way Bill Clinton wrote it. Forget those Serbian Christians. They have no right to any homeland. All the Muslims have to do is move in, and the land is theirs, by eternal right.)
General Wesley Clark
It is an ugly picture the UN paints, less violent than NATO only because it doesn't have the bombs. They was UN "forces" act in the very face of conflict, it seems they don't even have the bullets.
Zoroaster was the original Iranian prophet, who established what we could call the "indigenous" religion of ancient Perisa. He certainly did not recommend violence, even against animals. He was concerned about false reality. Maybe Zoroaster was on to something, and maybe modern Iran has slipped off. Zoroaster warned of the Great Lie, the false reality in which the irreligious and evil lived. It seems that the Islamic Republic of Islam is the manifestation of what Zoroaster warned against. Lies created at the governmental level are known as propaganda. Tehran is truly a false reality at this point, issuing lie after lie. Tehran is a den of dregvants (lies).
Zoroaster, not a depiction that would cause
his followers to murder others.
The liberal media, of course, loves it. Have lies to quote help create a good story. It helps schoolboy journalists create a sense of balance and objectivity. This is liberalism at its most mechanical, innocent dimension. The liberal writer weighs in on the side of the Lie, of course, but it seems to him, and to many others in the Lie, that he is actually being wonderfully impartial and transcendently impersonal and objective.
Consider Bryan Murphy's latest AP number. (Murphy is a regular "religious" writer for AP.) The opening line of an article on Tehran's response to the war in Lebanon: "Iran insists it will not be drawn into the Middle East fighting between Israel and Tehran's Hezbollah clients..." Tehran's Islamic government is causing the war! Will not be drawn into the fighting? Laughable objectivity.
The article proceeds to objectively offer the profound insite that the war is hardening the world against Tehran. (That's the title of the article: "Fighting Could Harden World's Iran Stance"). How sincere and caring. So, there is a need to present Tehran's point of view, like a good sophomore journalist student.
Regarding the likelihood that Tehran will put even more powerful weapons in the hands of Hezbollah, as it has recently done, Murphy quote Tehran party liner professor Ahmad Bakhshaiesh: "No one is saying this is possible or could even happen, but just the thought will likely increase the pressure on Iran." Poor things, those Islamicists. Of course, elsewhere, Bakhshaiesh asserts that Islamic Iran (Tehran) has a plan to rise as the dominant power in the Middle East. "Lebanon is part of that plan." Oh, excuse me. I thought we were concerned about poor "pressured" Iran.
Another authority is quoted, professor, of course, the drive-by media's only sure resource). Regarding Iran's 'need' for nuclear war power, Nasser Hadian says of the mullahs in Tehran, "In their minds, the region is so volatile that the only safety is to have the ability to produce a nuclear deterrent."
"In their minds." Right. That's an innocent way of distancing yourself from your party. Nassar will be lucky if they don't give him 50 lashes for implying that the Tehran government's mind is something other than whole reality.
"The only safety is to have the ability to produce a nuclear deterrent." Like, who's threatening Iran? What kind of paranoid delusion is that? I beg your pardon. It doesn't even qualify as a paranoid delusion. It is simply a lie. It is propaganda.
Living a lie. It's been done. It creates quite a clash of world interests. And it always loses, but only to start over again, rebuilding the delusion. Disease is part of reality here on earth. Desease of mind, soul, and body. We work against it. We strive to overcome it. This is our best shot.
Fanciful painting of Zoroaster (bearded) teaching at the Platonic Academy of
Athens. From the great 1506 painting of Raphael, "School of Athens." Not a place
we would expect to find Mohammad.
Intimidation and violence are powerful tools in gaining control of a society. Today we think of Hezbollah and Hamas as two leading murderous organizations. We think of Muslim leaders (mullahs) and suicidal mass murderers. But in days past, Italian people here in America, as well as Italy, experienced the same kind of intimidation and violence from something we call "la cosa nostra," or the mafia.
Some people have theorized that the "mafia" was actually related historically to the Italian anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but the anarchists were not secretive. They were politically quite prominent and publicized. The mafia was about crime, not political ideology. Crime is a leech, dependent upon a productive society. Political ideology is a bear, a devourer, with intent to destroy the opposition.
Al Capone, in the middle. From, Gangrule.com
Interestingly, the word "mafia" is from the old Sicilian adjective mafiusu, meaning bravado, bragging, boasting, and also beautiful. It implies aggression, impression, or intiative. Mafiusu is said to have roots in the Arabic word mahjas, for "bold."
It is also said that the gang mentality came out of Sicilian prisons, and its origin was in that social context. (Some versions of mafia history suggest that the origin was in land gangs developed to protect the citris groves of Palermo.) Today, the FBI identifies four basic Italian "gangs," totaling some 25,000 memebers, with 250,000 affiliates: the Sicilian Mafia (and the FBI says "mafia" means manly, or honorable); the Neopolitan Mafia--the largest in the US, with some 7,000 members; the Calabrain Mafia (bannished from Sicily in the 1860's); and the United Sacred Crown (newest development, discovered in the 1980's). All of these, of course, hide within Italian populations. They use Italian people to blend in, and penatrate the social stratas where Italian people have established themselves. (While most popular references to the mafia don't distinguish the Sicilian base from the Neopolitan dominance, the big change from the old mafia to the new was effected principally by Lucky Luciano, who was in fact Sicilian.)
The point is the use of their own people by these anti-social forces. Italian people have lived with the mob for 150 years. The Muslim mass murderers are much newer, and of a different purpose. While Hezbollah will use other Muslims as a cover, they do so only to kill others, not to make money off them. The mob needs a healthy society off which to drain wealth through vice. The Muslim murderers are out to destroy societies different from theirs--particularly the Jewish society of Israel. The object of the mafia is never to destroy its host, but to draw its life, like a vampire, to live off it, not to kill it. The object of the Muslim murderers is only to kill. Their vice is blood and death. They freely, mindlessly indulge themselves. If the mob were to destroy its hosty society, it would dry up like a leaf. It must carefully control its vices, its territories. The Muslim murderers do not value their own lives, or anyone else's.
"It's hard to beat them," one Israeli soldier said in a recent interview. "They're not afraid of anything." These is the view of a full human being. However, he implies that Hezbollahs have courage and bravery. This is not so. They have vice, they are under a wicked delusion, an evil spell. They are not thinking. They have a death wish, a blood lust. A man who is truly not afraid is a man who controls his fear--but he has fear. That self-control is called courage. A man with no fear is an automaton, a machine, a non-human. A devil. (Aye, but even the devils tremble before God. James 2:19. These murderous Muslims therefore know not God, at all. They are totally possessed with the vice of death.) They are "a tough enemy" only because they have forfeited their humanity. They are not brave. They are simply abandone--to death.
Muslims mass murderers, of the Muslim American Society.
And most important to understanding their utter depravity, is that they think nothing of killing their own. It is meaningless to them to use civilians, mothers, children, old men, as human shields, and to see them slaughtered. This the mafia would never do.
Israel is showered, too, with more than a 100 rockets day, but the media delights to dramatize the surgical bombing damage done by Israel to poor helpless Lebanese villagers. Willing servant of Muslim murderers, Western media is. An accomplice, no less. "They're talking about the bombing in Beirut, they should see what happened in my house," said an Israeli women in Haifa.
Why such one-sided news? The civilian damage done to the Lebonese by Israeli bombs--caused by Hezbollah. When the truth is known, Hezbollah no doubt threatens to kill the civilians in whose homes they hide--if those civilians rat on them, or even try to leave at all. Hezbollah wants civilians killed! Intimidation and violence--this is what makes Hezbollah strong. And that's intimidation of Arab Muslims, or any Muslims. That is the final stage of the Islamic disease: violent death. That is the goal. That is the purpose.
So, moderate Arabs want to curb the violence? A little too late, I'd say. Islam holds all Muslims hostage. The only political hope here is that the Arab Sunni Muslims will resist the Iranian Shiites. But then, the 9/11 murderers were Saudi Arab Sunnis. The murderers hide behind all Muslims.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend? The Muslims world cannot even unite against tiny little Israel. Islam doesn't make friends, only enemies. Islam is about death, not unity. Islam is about destruction, not accomplishment. This is the upshot of the religion, as manifest in this modern world.
The mafia only wants to use you. The Muslims want to kill you. The liberals are happy to have both agencies around, since themselves enjoy killing the unborn, and causing women to have breast cancer, and now slicing up embryos to boot, for absolutely useless stem cell research. What a triumverate of social ills. Mr. Gorbechov, never mind that wall. We've got leeches, murderers, and treasonists to deal with.
Former porn star Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of "Il Duce" (Benito Mussolini, the WWII dictator) is running for Mayor of Rome. This isn't a sudden move. She has been in politics for some time. (After all, pornography does wear you out after a while, especially when you're a female past 40. Ask PETA Pam. She's getting there too, in age and in politics). As early as 1992, Alessandra has had a parliamentary seat in a Naples constituency. In 1994 she continued to campaign, but different political factions displaced hers. She is associated still with fascism, but, in Italian politics today, factions of that sort are classified as Right, not Left. Even the word "socialist" is associated with the Right.
Italy's Social Alternative party leader Alessandra Mussolini gestures at an
election rally in Naples, southern Italy, in this April 7, 2006, file photo. The
granddaughter of wartime Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini said Tuesday,
April 18, 2006, she is running to be mayor of Rome in elections next month.
AP Photo/Salvatore Laporta
In July, 1994, ELLE ran a hack political piece by Eric Alterman, who was unable to get an interview with Alessandra, but cut and pasted together articles about her and tried to make it appear that he had some kind of personal contact. In this very sloppy piece, extreme liberal Alterman tried to point out the prejudice of Alessandra toward Arabs. He accuses her of exploiting the public disfavor toward "unemployed and underpaid immigrant [Arab] labor." I suppose every country has such a population. In Italy, it happens to be Arab. In the ELLE article, there is picture of Alessandra campaigning, with cited words to the effect that she would "clean up all the Arab sh-t" in Naples. (There are no archival provisions for ELLE online, so, you'll have to take my word for it. I reviewed the article for publisher Diane Silberstein, but she did not share my concerns. I also pointed out Alterman's dutiful self-hating anti-Semitism, to no avail.)
Now (2006), Alessandra Mussolini is running for Mayer of Rome. She is part of Silvio Berlusconi's conservative coalition. (In Italian politics, 'conservative' means something other than completely amoral, though it's still a stretch to consider a porn star a conservative, at least in terms of American politics.) Yes, yes, when you get old and chunky, you get conservative, no matter what culture you're in.
Why, Alessandra's conservatism knows no bounds! With old-fashioned Italian drama, the former porn star declares: "I will personally give out a 250 euro net check each month to some two hundred Italian families struggling against poverty." The European Parliament member went on to explain, "I guarantee it will only be Italian families."
Obviously, the aversion to immigrant beggars (Arabs) is a strong theme in Italian politics, at least southern Italian politics. Family values, why that's the pith of conservatism. Of course, Italy is a catholic country, but, faced with hordes of third world immigrants like most European countries are, in Italy there is a healthy does of nationalism--of ethnic-based nationalism mixed in with 'family values' conservatism.
Given the sociological flavor brought to light by Alessandra Mussolini's politics, perhaps we can look again at the Zidane/Materazzi case as it played out on the field of soccer during the 2006 World Cup. Zinedine Zidane falls into the third world Arab immigrant category, despite the fact that he was actually born in France, and his ethnicity is actually southern Algerian. He is simply, generally speaking, an Arab Muslim. He represents what Italy disdains. No, we shall not hold Marco Materazzi up as a pristine Roman Catholic, or even a profound Italian nationalist. Whatever insults he may offered Zidane, they constituted little more than street level, gang level opposition. (We really don't know. He may be an Italian zealot, an avid patriot of his country.)
Alessandra Mussolini, from porno to patriotism?
Well, most Italian women who have achieved stardom
have done so through nudity. Nothing unusual there.
In any case, the recent announcement of Alessandra Mussolini's bid for Mayor of Rome did not go unnoticed by the Muslim community. The Aliraqi forum posted on it Wednesday (July 19).
So, what shall we expect when hordes of non-Catholic, non-Italian, aggressive Arab Muslims invade Italy? Italians are just low-down enough to care about their country. They will not be like the French, or the Germans, or the English, or the northern Europeans, and simply let the third world Muslims move in. Italians have just a little respect for who they are. Neanderthal as that may seem to modern liberals, a nation can always count on its "primitives" to save the country.
Muslims are simply out of their tree. The world does not want them or their religion. They have made it repulsive to the most basic instincts of civilization. Let that play out on the soccer field of the world, eh? That's exactly what's happening. Muslims have made it so, or, they have failed to make it not so.
In the process of analyzing the 2006 World Cup soccer match between France and Italy, and the juvenility displayed by Algerian Muslim ("born in France) Zinedine Zidane and his subsequent religious justification stated on national French television, I have more than once referenced a book by Franklin Foer, How Soccer Explains the World (Harper, 2004). Looking over the book once more, I noticed something I missed, in the "Prologue."
Zidane and Materazzi, on trial before the
world, as well as FIFA itself.
It seems that there is a confusion of terms. Foer refers to a "Marxist criticism of corporate capitalism," and then in a remarkable reversal of terms, says,
The innovation of the anti-globalization left is its embrace of traditionalism: its worry that global tastes and brands will streamroll indigenous cultures. (pp.4,5.)
Perhaps this confusion is inevitable. Corporate business, on the grandest scale, is definitely globalist. But, to say that Leftists are not globalists is a delusion at best, and an outright lie at worst. Marxism is Communism, and Communism is Leftism. This ideology is the premiere globalism. It seeks to destroy all nationality, all ethnicity, and all other man-made boundaries. International business tries to market nationality, ethnicity, and culture. That Foer should say the left is "anti-globalization" is a critical revelation. That he should cite indigenous people as "traditionalism," and then pit them against globalization shows that Foer is missing an essential element of deception. (That would mean he is in fact deceived.) The Left uses indigenous peoples only to try to break up established civilizations, so that the Left, that is, Communism, can assert itself. It's the "divide and conquer" technique. Communism has slaughtered more indigenous people that any other form of government in history. Harvard's Black Book of Communism demonstrates that clearly.
Now, many things Foer observes about soccer are quite true. He says it tends to foster both nationalism and globalism, depending on the circumstances. He concludes, however, that globalization has not in fact affected the localism, the nationalism, the "indigenous" element as much as the highly integrated national teams would suggest.
Soccer is basically still very much a tribal sport, a class struggle, and an opportunity to crystalize localized identities. Indeed, Foer cites "the failure of globalization to erode ancient hatreds in the games' great rivalries."
Well, as I said before, soccer may have helped contribute to the illusion of globalization, but, in the end, it is clear that globalization has had a lot more effect on soccer. The French team itself was a classica example, with it's near absence of native French blood. The Muslim behavior of Zidane shows how globalization only brings foreign elements to the top. It Takes a Village Leftism only demonstrates that the lower elements influence the higher, and not vice versa.
Perhaps Foer is an honest Leftist, in that he admits that mixing cultures does not finally change the heart. The old values are there, as born-in-france Algerian Muslim Zidane demonstrated. All globalization has done has brought murderous Muslims into the civilized world, to plan and plot its destruction.
Zidane and Materazzi are awaiting FIFA verdicts on the case. It seems Materazzi had indeed offered an insult or two to Zidane. No one really doubted that. But that is hardly a concern here. The point is, globalization seems an inevitability, for one cause or another. I'll have to vote for the business approach, however. At least it tends to respect cultural differences, if but to profit from them. Profit is a strong, reliable motive. The Left has only power in mind. Power for power's sake. That is lethal.
Liberals love death, according to Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism. More and more this is coming to light. The Liberal lust for abortion, for embryonic stem cell research (which is a sort of preemptive abortion), and for releasing murderers from prison, are just a few of the more obvious preoccupations with death.
What about when members of the same race, religion, or ethnicity kill each other? We don't hear any objection from the Left when Iraqis kill each other on a daily basis. Just last night 53 were killed and 105 wounded in a massive murder/suicide car bomb in Kufa (southern Iraq). They were just innocent day laborers, gathered outside a shrine, awaiting work. And no, blaming the United States doesn't count for protesting their death, nor a vote for supporting their life and the prosperity of Iraq.
Lebanon need not expect support from the Left if it applies its own army to combat Hezbollah. If Arab Muslims kill Arab Muslims, the Left won't be protesting that, although they will surely find reason to blame the United States and Israel. That's what's important. Who cares whether Arabs kill Arabs? Leftists just want political power against the United States. There is no other motivation.
This lack of concern for ethnocentric strife and death, even disdain for it, takes place in many dimensions. Look at the comedian Dave Chappelle. No one makes fun of "niggers" more effectively. And no one protests his show. So, it's okay for a Negro to make comedy out of other Negroes, but no one else can, no other race can, least of all a white person. It's okay for Leftist Jews to say horrible things about Jews, or about Israel, but if a non-Jew were to say such things, it would be anti-semitic. We've all lived with this awareness for some time, but we just haven't gotten used to how it plays out on the internation seen. Muslims are teaching us that ultimate application. Muslims can kill each other, and even the Left is silent. Of course. It's their law of action, their behavioral code. Liberals say you can kill, unless it's in defense of America, Christianity, or fetuses. You can kill your own kind, you can kill yourself. You can kill the unborn. Liberals in fact encourage it. They wouldn't dare promote Judeo-Christian moral behavior (abstenance) that would immediately stop the spread of AIDS. They would rather see the African societies kill themselves off.
The Left would probably not speak a word of protest if the Lebanese Army took on Hezbollah. It's Muslim against Muslim. But the Left must be careful how it speaks at all, lest it find itself supporting conservative values. Conservatives want to see freedom and prosperity for all, but if the far Left actually supports the cause of Hezbollah, then it is a tactical crisis for Leftist propoganda. Which is more delightful, seeing Arab Muslims kill other Arab Muslims, as in Iraq, or seeing Arab Muslims kill Jews and Americans? Tought choice. Must be handled carefully.
The Rev. James Forbes Jr. speaks from his pulpit
at the Riverside Church during funeral services for
civil rights activist and former Riverside Church
senior minister the Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr.,
April 20, 2006, in New York. Forbes has become
a driving force in the 'religion left' movement.
AP Photo/Kathy Willens
The Rev. James A. Forbes Jr. could probably handle it. The new Negro preacher of New York's famous River Side Presyterian Church, is telling his congregation to quit blaming Republicans and conservatives! What a move. What profound social transcendence. What spiritual triumph. "He has emerged as a key figure in a movement to rally religious liberals and challenge evangelical Christians" says a recent AP wire. Yes, they're wrong, and they cause all the problems, these conservative Republicans, but don't waste time blaming them. Work for change instead. Now that's real Christian insight.
But Forbes is "black." He can say anything, and be praised for it. And the NAACP can advocate racism, and be honored for it. "Blacks shouldn't spend money with companies that don't hire them or advertise in their communities," says NAACP President Bruce S. Gordon. "If corporations spend their money on us, we'll spend our money with those corporations," he said. "It's real simple."
It's all good. It's all Left. It's all race.
But it's also all death. Death to choice, death to freedom, death to individuality, death to responsibility, and death to patriotic ideas. What doesn't the Left just come out at say it: "Death to America!" That's what the Islamic Republic of Iran has been saying since 1979. Their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would be new hero of the Left, surpassing such luminaries as Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.
Do Arabs thrive on hate? What kind of souls do they have that they would carefully train children, from birth, to hate Jews (and also Christians)? Is it a culture of fear, this Islamic thing? Did Mohammad understand that hatred was the only way to unite Arabs? Is the Qur'an a cultural ploy, designed to provide a focus of hate, and a basis for social unification based on that hate?
Mohammad (the prophet), from a western depiction.
Islamicists do not usually portray images of Mohammad,
though there are some in Persian and Turkish art.
Nina Shea reports that Saudi Arabia's modern school textbooks continue to train Muslims Arab children to hate Jews and Christians. The Saudi government professed to changed all this, after 9/11, when it was learned that 15 of the 19 airborne murderers turned out to be Saudis. But, even when the official Saudi government professed to the world that Saudi schools would reform, and that the textbooks would be revised, still the doctrine of hate is paramount in the schools, and spelled out in the textbooks. It hasn't changed.
Children learn to hate Jews and Christians in an Islamic schoo, not in Saudi
Arabia, but in Bonn, Germany.
"Scholars estimate that within the Saudi public school curriculum, Islamic studies make up a quarter to a third of students' weekly classroom hours in lower and middle school, plus several hours each week in high school. Educators who question or dissent from the official interpretation of Islam can face severe reprisals. In November 2005, a Saudi teacher (Muhammad al-Harbi of Qassim province) who made positive statements about Jews and the New Testament was fired and sentenced to 750 lashes and a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned after public and international protests.)"
What is the message being taught Arab children from K through 12? "An ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine... The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam...and unbelievers ('infidels')." Wahhabism (a movement founded 250 years ago by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) is the Islamic system that is reflected in these textbooks. It is austere Sunni Islam.
Saudi school children (in a sand storm), off to learn more about hating Jews.
And Saudi Arabia is supposed to be considered "moderate?" This is a dangerous delusion. In Shea's report, we read about the doctrine taught, at each grade level. An interesting passage is found in an eighth-grade text:
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
Islam appears to be a pathology. A socio-pathology. In some avant gard American psychological circles, "anger therapy" is a workable means of helping a mentally ill person to focus, and to bring order into his thoughts. Perhaps Islam should be viewed in this manner. Mohammad was insightful. He knew Arabs would respond to hate, which is much more productive than fear. Arab tribes were all polytheistic, superstitious, spell-prone peoples. Mohammad put the ultimate spell on them: hate. And he told them whom to hate: Jews and Christians. It worked like a charm, indeed. Arabs were able to unite, and attack the world about them. In a generation after 622 AD, when Mohammad went on the rampage, Islam had created an incredible empire, oppressing all in its path.
This is still the Muslim modus operandi, apparently. And it is taught, from kindergarten. From birth. Severe are the punishments for straying off the path of hate and aggression--particularly those in the media business, since they might influence great numbers of people to weaken their resolve to hate.
But, more importantly, this lovely doctrine of hate is coming to a town near you! Indeed. There a a goodly number of private Islamic academies in western countries. Bonn, Germany had to suspend one of their teachers for inciting jihad. And closer to home, in Las Vegas, the Muslim community has recently build a marvelous new academy of hate. (Ah, the luxuries of freedom. Hate training at home.)
I'd say we mock ourselves with our "tolerance" of hate mongers. The Leftist of this country love to come down on white supremacists, but you never hear a word about Arabs. Arabs Muslims are far more experienced and refined in their hatred of Jews and Christians. They, however, get a free pass. Why, they're foreigners, and they hate America. Therefore they are welcomed by Leftists. White supremacists might learn a lesson.
Maybe Lebanon shouldn't be called a nation any more. The media seems confused about nationhood.
The events in Lebanon have been presented with perfect ambiguity. A report today contains repeated confusion of terms. An AP wire earlier this morning (Sunday, July 16) by Josef Federman, had this headline:
Hezbollah Rocket Barrage Kills 8 in Haifa
The opening line of the story, however, reads like this:
Lebanese guerillas fired a relentless barrage of rockets...
Israeli gunners cover their ears as a heavy artillery piece fires at a target in
southern Lebanon, near Kiryat Shmona, on the Israeli border, Sunday, July 16, 2006.
Lebanese guerrillas fired a relentless barrage of rockets into the northern Israeli
city of Haifa on Sunday, killing eight people at a railway depot and wounding seven in a
dramatic es-calation of a five-day-old conflict that has shattered hopes for Mideast
peace. AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen
Are then Hezbollah militants to be understood as Lebanese guerillas? Another Federman article (Sunday afternoon) contains the same confusion: "Lebanese guerillas fired a relentless barrage of rockets"
A different AP wire this morning, by Oded Balilty, read: Hezbollah Fires Rocket Barrage at Israel The opening line read: Hezbollah guerillas fired a barrage of rockets. A little more consistent, perhaps, but the issue is still the same.
What nationality is Hezbollah? Any? Are they mixed--like the so-called "Palestinians?" Are they properly considered the nationality of whatever nation they take up residence in? If so, then they denigrate and defy the whole meaning of nationhood. This is the deepest issue of all. Islam claims to be trans-national. We now see the result on a small, local scale. The nation that houses Hezbollah, or Hamas, or Al qaeda, has surrendered its identity and its rights as a nation. It becomes a lacky. The nation that harbors international murderers (not soldiers, for they do not deserve the dignity of the title) has surrendered its sovereignty. The nation that provides a haven for "trans-national" murderers is no longer a nation. It cannot therefore profess innocence or independence. It has identified with the murderers, by choice. It cannot therefore protest coming under fire.
The Hezbollah minister of misinformation Sheik Hassan Nasrallah claims that none of the Israeli offensives have affected Hezbollah whatever. He said, "We are in our full strength and power. We will choose the place and the time, and we will not let the enemy impose the means or place to use their weapons." Masters of braggadocio, these Arabs. Of course, Hamas, down in Gaza, has joined in the swell of imaginary triumph. With absolutely no national identity, historically or presently the so-called "Palestinians" (mostly Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians) are delighted to have some kind of identity--if even only to hate Israel. Yes, they've been doint that for some time, but to be able to profess unity with another group that hates Israel--at a time of actual warfare, this is strongest illusion of identity the so-called "Palestinians" have had in a while. And this is about as close to a sense of corporate identity as they will ever have, short-lived though it will be.
[So-called] Palestinians participate in a protest to support Hezbollah in the West
Bank town of Nablus Sunday July 16, 2006. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah
urged Arabs and Muslims worldwide to support his guerrillas, saying Sunday that his
group is fighting Israel on their behalf and that the battle has just begun.
AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh
Islam destroys nationhood. No truly Islamic people can endure nationhood. Islam doesn't accommodate the concept. Islam is a race-based (Arab-based) religion. It has no nation, really. It has only one purpose: to make the world Muslim, by violence. Islam, as executed by all known Muslim leadership, wants only to crush all opposition, and bring all the world into slavery to a few mullahs. Worse, more deadly, than any other human movement, Islam is the antithesis of all freedom.
Hezbollah and Hamas are examples of the cutting edge of Islam. The only reason all Islamic nations don't support and harbor them (if in fact they don't), is due to fear of repercussions from other nations. Most people tend to like the idea of having a nation of some kind. It seems the natural way of humanity. Islam, however, is contrary. Hezbollah and Hamas, weak and nasty as they are, would not exist but for the support of Iran and Syria, (and no doubt Russia and China, indirectly). The Islamic world is complicit to all affronts to Israel, Europe, and America, and all non-Islamic countries. Islam, through Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-qaeda, has declared itself the enemy of the world. This must be understood by all. Any other view of Islam will be fatal to all who hold it.
Whether Federman's wording of "Hezbollah" and "Lebanese guerillas" was intentional or not, it does indicate the bottom line: Islam is the enemy of nationhood.
Though world media can't seem to get the story straight, Lebanon attacked Israel. However, if you do a search of "Lebanon Attacks Israel" and you find all the entries read "Israel Attacks Lebanon." (CNN can't bring itself to call it like it is. Why, it was merely a "cross-border raid," not an invasion, or an attack.) A likely story about how news works, indeed. And if the Jews control the media, they're certainly suicidal about it. Or else they're providing a wonderfully "balanced" view! They blame Israel for everything, since Israel controls the world. Something like that.
Israelis bomb Lebanese bridege. Of course,
no photos of the Lebanese attack on Israel.
But the simple fact is, Lebanese soldiers came across the Israeli border, attacked a convoy, and took two Israeli soldiers captive back into Lebanon. Oh, yes, Lebanese soldiers were actually Hezbollah guerillas. So that makes it non-political. That lets Lebanon off the hook.
Lebanese youths wave Hezbollah flags as
they celebrate Wednesday in the suburbs
of Beirut, Lebanon. War is such great fun.
So exciting. Sucha wonderful preoccupation
of Arab youth.
Well, Lebanon is on the hook--Syria's hook. Iran's hook. Syria willingly hosts Hezbollah. Iran sponsors Hezbollah. Lebanon is not independent, though it may have tried to be. The Lebanese government saw the aggrandized withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in April of last year (2005). But Lebanon has not ousted Hezbollah, which has a legitimized role in Lebanese politics, and a free reign to operate within Lebanon. And now Lebanon pays the price. It is as simple as that.
The last three days, as this war commenced, Bad Eagle was concentrating on the Muslim ideologies of soccer superstar Zinedine Zidane. We examined his sentiments, particularly those which expressed his position of irresponsibility in retaliation. It became quite clear that the Muslim view is one without remorse. The Arab mind responds to offense (real or imagined, and usually imagined) in a most mechanical, thoughtless manner. It is the Pavlov's Dog response.
One of my Iranian-American soccer friends once commented on the so-called "Palestinians." He said, "Look, David. These people feel they've been humiliated. They're never going to accept it. Never."
This is actually very insightful. This explains the lack of rationality, the lack of common sense, and the lack of cooperation in the Middle Eastern Arab Muslim way, whether it's in Syria, Jordon, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or even the Arab-ized element of Iran. The Arab mind must respond to offense, real or imagined, with the full force of justice--as the Arab minds sees justice. Anything less is unacceptable. And we are is giving them the benefit of the doubt on this matter. What we often see has nothing to do with justice. It is simply pure hate and thuggery, a primal lust for violence and murder. One would be very foolish (as most theorists and journalists are) to leave this element out of the formula. But instead, the great talkers of the world dignify every passion in the Arab, or in anyone, as if it is a purposeful part of the human experience, as if it is a right.
Maybe it's time to give Israel a free hand to do what it needs to do. No more of this "restraint" business. We're talking about the survival of a nation, not tea talk. Israel already saved the world from the nuclear threat of Saddam Hussein in 1981. It will probably be Israel that saves the world from Ahmadinejad as well.
But on the matter of who's right and who's wrong, [b]the Arab is never wrong. And the Arab is never fighting for survival.[/b] (Please read those words over again, slowly, and carefully.) The Arab is fighting for the superior position of his ego. Nothing more. Nothing else. Yes, it is very natural. Too natural. The ego is never satisfied.
Add to this the mysterious, divinely ordain aversion to Jews, and you have a perpetual conflict. Consider the Torah:
"Fear and dread shall fall upon them [the non-Jew]." Exodus 15:16
"I will send My fear before thee." Exodus 23:27
"This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations
that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble,
and be in anguish because of thee." Deuteronomy 2:25
"There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the Lord your God shall lay the fear
of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon." Deuteronomy 11:25
My intuition is that somewhere in the meaning of these verses lies the explanation for why a billion Arabs surrounding Israel can do nothing but yap and bark at the heels of Israel. They cannot act as a body of people, and Islam is powerless to unite them. That professed Islamic unity is propaganda. It is a grand media illusion, or delusion. The Muslim people of the Middle East, are simply too tribal, too individualistic, too divided, and will not unite in any serious geo-political action. They are simply incapable. Hate may unite their sentiments, but never their actions, never effectively, never successfully.
In the meantime, let everyone remember that the United States gives a yearly $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt, plus $2 million in cash; $1.1 billion in aid to Jordon, $450 million of which is for military aid; in the year 2000, Clinton promised $15 billion to Syria as a reward for withdrawing from the Golan Heights; by 2004, the US Congress decided to keep aid to Saudi Arabia to an annual allowance of $22,000. Lebanon itself got about a million this year, though Bush had requested $4.8 million--for military aid. Well, there are no real accurate figures for all this, but suffice it to say, the oil-rich Arab countries needn't complain about US aid to Israel.
There was no state of Israel when the Islam swept the world with violence, and nearly choked Europe to death during the Middle Ages. Now there is a state of Israel, and Islam's only real weapons are murderous terrorists and "civil rights." Personally, I'm very grateful to God for Israel. I no doubt do not fully understand the circumstances involved, and I can't really make a theological statement, but I feel like my late mother felt. The old Comanche woman said, "The whole world depends on Israel. The world depends on that Israeli air force."
French soccer star Zinedine Zidane went on national French television (Canal Plus) to talk about the incident during the closing events of the 2006 World Cup soccer match. He spoke directly about his outrageous head-butt into the chest of unsuspecting opponent Marco Materazzi, but claims Materazzi provoked him by insulting words.
The Bad Eagle Journal has followed this story with interest. We had hoped for a better performance from Zidane, at least under the very controlled circumstance of national/international television. We had hope that he could rise above himself, and do the world a favor. We thought he might confess before the children, before young athletes, that he failed as an athlete. For this, we would have honored him, mightily.
But this he did not do. He did as we predicted he would do. He invalidated his "apology" by excusing it.
Angela Donald, Associate Press, offers a fair account of Zidane's testimony. It is very clear that nobility and personal responsibility are not part of his thinking. Bad Eagle was then clearly mistaken to expect otherwise. We had hoped for a testimony to the world of recovery, of maturity, grandeur of spirit, and a type of bid for world peace. We had hoped for transcendence, for human dignity.
Instead, we got the Arab attitude, or, the Islamic view. And how weak it truly is. No wonder there are so many problems in the world emanating from the Muslims.
"I tell myself that if things happened this way, it's because somewhere up there it was decided that way," the 34-year-old midfielder said in an interview on TF1 television. "And I don't regret anything that happened, I accept it."
He stressed he felt no regret "because that would mean (Materazzi) was right to say all that."
"There was a serious provocation," Zidane said. "My act is not forgivable. But they must also punish the true guilty party, and the guilty party is the one who provokes."
Got it? Zidane is a victim! It was Allah! It was Materazzi. That's all. Zidane is just a poor, miserable worm.
The French media has treated Zidane as nothing less than a national hero, and a moral icon, no less. They have allowed him to define France as a nation of Muslim values. This is all perfectly clear now. He weakness were honored as strenth.
He blamed God ("someone up there") and Materazzi ("the one who provokes"). In his Arab Muslims thinking, the one who provokes is the guilty party. Why, Zidane was just a mechanial being, a Pavlov dog, a mere animal, with no will, no self-control, and no responsibility. Unless we hear an immediate and rather loud outcry from Muslim leaders, these thoughts of Zidane will go on record as the latest revelation of Muslim thinking. Bad Eagle has pointed this thinking out before, in fact. However, few listened or appreciated it.
French soccer star Zinedine Zidane, left, leaves the Elysee Palace after a lunch
with French President Jacques Chirac, right, on Monday July 10, 2006 in Paris.
For many French citizens, the hardest part of France's World Cup final loss to
Italy wasn't the defeat itself but the moment when national hero Zinedine Zidane
ended his career with a brutal act of fury. AP Photo/Patrick Kovarik, Pool
The French media and government are willing to let Zidane's Arab Muslim ideology be personally exemplified, nationally honored, and apparently expect the world to accept the fiasco, like Zidane 'accepts it.' It is the will of Allah. That's right. The will of Allah.
Of course, Materazzi denies he said any such things as Zidane accuses him of, but that's a different story. Suffice it to say, now, that Zidane has displayed, unequivocably, that the Muslim mind is ignoble by Western Judeo-Christian standards. We are expecting therefore the wrong kind of behavior from Muslims. They don't think like we do. They don't value what we value--at least not in terms of personal character. Zidane's example and words are indeed an unanswerable testimony to all. Zidanes words explain why the Arabs cannot abide the state of Israel, and yet why they cannot effectively do anything about it. Such idolizing of the ego is debilitating socially and nationally.
Personal responsibility, as we understand it, is simply not part of the Islamic Weltanshauung (world view). It is rather alam i sugrah, the world of earth. By earth I mean animal--not in the mean sense, but in the irresponsible sense. I say this without malace, but with simply clarity. Zidane delared himself a Pavlov dog. He lives by trained responses, not by creative thought or personal relations. His testimony is rather a tragedy, but a wonderfully needed revelation of what the world deals with in the Muslim.
The soft-spoken interview might indicate some slight public shame, but, it is superficial. Zidane's words speak much louder than his actual voice. The man, and millions like him, does not believe in moral responsibility. He is a complete victim of how he is treated. He cannot and will not absorb offense, real or imagined. It is the ideology of a slave.
After his spectacular display of immaturity in the 2006 World Cup soccer finals, Zinedine Zidane, the Algerian super star was nevertheless awarded the Golden Ball for his performance throughouth the World Cup. But now it seems that award is in jeopardy. The Golden Ball is not warded by FIFA (whose judgment is not all that impressive of late, since it more and more resembles something like the NCAA in its myopic tyranny), but instead by an independent international commission of journalists. Not that journalists are flawless critics either, but, this award is their prerogative.
Zidane getting the infamous red card
in the 2006 WC soccer final.
Now, Zidane is scheduled to give his version of the story today, Wednesday, at 8:00 pm on Canal Plus television, but, it is impossible to excuse his behavior. He can only offer an explanation. Obviously something Marco Materazzi said provoked him. So, Zidane may plead his own slavery to pride. It's the simple "He made me do it!" defense. Would it hold up in court? Hardly. Not even in the court of public opinion, and least of all in the court of sportsmanship. (And even kindergarten athletes know that the referee never sees the provcation, only the retaliation! Zidane's position is completely unsustainable. He was wrong for what he did, and that's the end of it.)
Zidane has an opportunity, however, to show himself to be a real man. He could humble himself, and not attempt to excuse his behavior, by any means. It doesn't appear likely that he will do so, but, the opportunity is there. He should apologize to all sports fans of the world. He has disgraced the game, at the very highest level. He has disgraced all games. Therefore, he should be first to admit it, to show true remorse and regret, and to acknowledge the wrongness of what he did--including the whole matter of losing one's temper in sports. In this way, he could give the very finest example of human dignity and respect.
He could then stand as a rebuke to all prima donnas, maniac coaches, and even fans who aggrandize their own tempers. He could set an example before the whole world of how to regard rage and anger. He could rebuke even the idiotic American politicians, and more idiotic TV and radio talk show hosts who capitalize on vehemence and childish rage. Zidane could instead be a great advocate of peace, since that's what the liberal media feigns to thrive on anyway.
This is certainly not the Arab temperament. But, Zidane is in a unique position now to advoacte world peace. He could set the right example, for the Arab world, for the sports world, and for all humanity. He could peform a simple act of humility, and apologize, without excuses. This would be akin to the divine.
Instead, he will probably offer a battery of explanations. If he does suggested an apologetic sentiment at all, it will be utterly saturated with excuses. No doubt, he is being pressured to talk about the incident anyway, so that we won't even be able to trust his sincerety, one way or another.
Zidane is a terrific star. He is as cool as them come, in style, in person, and in talent. His fall was colossal. His recovery will require true character. Does he have it?
Does the world have the moral wherewithal to even recognize it?
Zinedine Zidane, now notorious for his misbehavior in the 2006 World Cup Soccer final, has undergone some recent media analysis for that behavior, but the sports commentators, as well as sportsment and coaches, have displayed a lack of cultural knowledge, and unfamiliarity with custom. (And it's not atheletic 'field' rage, either.)
First of all, Zidane is not European. He is Algerian. His home village is Aguemoune. His father was born in the Kabylies Mountains of southern Algeria, but moved the family to Marseilles after 1962. Algeria is 99% Arab-Berber, and Muslim in faith. This reflects Middle Eastern culture, not European.
Zinedine Zidane
When Zidane lost his temper in the second overtime play (110th minute), he not only did something he's done before, but something that is not uncommon in Arabic, or Middle Eastern culture: head-butting. Zidane has words with Italian player Marco Materazzi. This was evident. But when it seemed over, then Zidane seemed to be walking away (Materazzi just behind him, walking), Zidane turned around and butted his head into the chest of Materazzi (who of course fell to the ground in great drama). Zidane was red-carded (ejected from the game), of course, to the great disappointment and disgust of all. (The Paris-based anti-racism group, SOS RACISM tried to accuse Materazzi of calling Zidane "a dirty terrorist," but that's rather silly, for that would imply either that Materazzi knew Arabic, or that Zidane knew Italian, or that they both knew French, or English, or whatever. Materazzi flatly denies that he said such a thing.)
But let me offer an account of Zidane's behavior, in a cultural context. I saw a fight between a North African Arab and another player from the Middle East. It was during a friendly soccer match (in which I was playing). The two never liked each other, and one day they came to blows. Just how they came to blows is precisely the point. The fight doesn't start right away. There is a tension building, challenging period. The two do not immediatly start swinging fists. They first approach each other, hands almost down. They bring their foreheads into close proximity, even to the point of touching, for extended seconds. Finally, one of them indicates the fight is on by butting heads. The other one has done the same.
It's is like a fight between two bull elk or bison. When the moment is mutually recognized, the fight begins. Not a second before.
I'm saying that the account for Zidane's behavior probably lies in this man-to-man custom in the Middle Eastern world. It's a masculline etiquette, if you please. However, Zidane's behavior was clearly out of line even in that realm. And Materazzi probably hadn't the faintest idea of what was happening. He wasn't even looking in Zidane's direction when it happened. Why should he expect such a thing? He is European. He is Italian, not Arabic.
In the Arab world ego levels are clearly marked and taken very seriously. Even in conversation, the Arab is quick to recognize a challenge, and responds with complete devotion. Nevertheless, such ego custom is to be left off the soccer field. For this breach of trust, Zidane, who promises to talk about the incident in the future, is nevertheless fallen from grace. And he cannot recover. Though he's is still a hero in his home village, and though he was awarded the Golden Ball for best player in the entire World Cup tournament of 2006, he is a low man.
Soccer is a rather naked sport. The players are not wearing protective equipment. They have to respect each other, or mayhem breaks out immediately. Zidane should be stripped of all his honors. Of course, FIFA is a liberal institution, as most rule-making agencies are. They obviously forgive Zidane. And FIFA continues to bring weakness to the sport, proffering more and more chances to win, like two over time periods, and then goalie shoot-outs. This is all repulsive to the true sportsman. If you can't win in 90 minutes of play time, you lose. I've commented on this elsewhere. Suffice it to say that soccer cannot endure such liberalism. The players quit 65 minutes into the regulation 90. Don't make the effort to win, knowing there are ample chances to win later.
FIFA forgives Zidane. I don't. Consequences are vital. Without them, all is diluted to meaningless. This is the liberal social trend, of course, to dispense with consequences. It doesn't show how soccer explains the world, but it shows how a liberal, Leftist world has affected soccer.
The average Christian missionary has wonders to tell of. Christian missionary stories should be the stock and story of young people's literature. BadEagle.com has a special forum for mission stories. We encourage support for missionaries. Recently, I ran across the following story in a mission paper, and found that it is a story of its own. No human missionary involved!
At seems that a young Muslim girl in city of Azerbaijan encountered a small miracle. Gunel's grandfather recently passed, and she and her mother boarded a bus to go to the cemetary and visit the grandther's grave. Gunel was crying, quietly, but another woman on the bus, a complete stranger, came over to her and tried to her. The woman said that the Lord is good, and that Jesus was coming again to this earth, and there was great cause for hope. Gunel was greatly affected by these thoughts. The woman encouraged Gunel and her mother to visit a small congregation in town, and they could learn more about this great hope.
Gunel, of Azerbaijan. (Her family name, and the city in which
she lives have been kept confidential, for reasons of safety.)
A month later, Gunel's mother was on the bus again, and encountered the same woman. The woman spoke the same words, and gave her the address of the little congregation. This was too much. Gunel's mother was so impressed, she asked Gunel to go with her to visit the the group. It was on Saturday morning. (It was a Adventist group, but apparently the woman had not said that, nor did Gunel and her mother know anything about it until they arrived. They perceived it was a Christian group, and that made them nervous. As good Muslims, they had never been in a Christian place of worship, on Saturday or Sunday, or on any day.
Gunel and her mother looked for the woman who had invited them, but could not see her. They were welcomed very warmly by the members. Every Muslim knows the risk of associating with Christians, and the consequence of abandoning the Muslim faith.
Mother and daughter were invited to stay for services. They did, and very much appreciated the new message. They afterwards asked about the women on the bus who had invited them in the first place. No one knew any such women as Gunel and her mother carefully described. The pastor, who obviously knew every Adventist in the whole city--which was an extremely limited number, no doubt, concluded that there was no such woman. It was an angel.
Gunel at a AWR training seminar in Tbilisi, Georgia
Gunel's mother studied the bible with the Adventists, and in time was baptized! A little later, Gunel, along with her brother and sister were baptized. They now hold small group bible studies in their own home. Gunel's father is still Muslim, but is not averse to the new Adventist faith of his family. Of course, Gunel's friends have mostly abandoned her. And she has experienced some public ridicule.
Gunel attended an Adventist World Radio training seminar in Tbilisi, Georgia. She wants to learn how to produce a radio program. AWR is planning to build a radio station in Azerbaijan, and who knows, Gunel may be an important part of that effort.
Read the report by Benjamin Schoun on the Aventist World Radio site. It's in the Summer 2006 issue.
It's the same story all over again. China's peasant people are being run off their family land, because they are simply in the way of progress. A Reuters story repeats the ancient way of the world: "Land seizures provoke growing anger in China".
Guojiadian Village, just outside Beijing, is ripe for the bull dozer. And Liu Guilan (64) isn't a bit happy about it. Without water and power since April, she refuses to move, even at local government orders. "I'm just a poor peasant woman," she added, dabbing away her tears with toilet paper. "I don't seem to have any rights."
"As breakneck urban development eats into China's countryside, arbitrary land grabs by officials making exorbitant profits by selling it on to developers have sparked resentment and, in some cases, major social unrest."
It's that same story. Progress is like a locomotive. Economic expansion simply cannot be resisted. Land is there to be taken--by the strongest. There is no other story known in social history.
The Reuters report further states:
"Premier Wen Jiabao admitted in March during the annual meeting of parliament that errant local officials were to blame for many of the protests and vowed harsh punishment for those who forcibly seize land from peasants."
"Earlier in June, the Ministry of Land and Resources admitted that in some cities more than 60 percent of the commercial land acquisitions since September 2004 had been illegal."
The four page article simply states the obvious. Of course, what's missing from the picture is the Hollywood heros, the rights brigade of the Left. A pathetico news article is gesture, of course, but let's see if the UN can jump out and make some noise.
China has only recently been understood to be a "nation," which is what most people forget. Even in by the 1930's it was still gang land, at best. Tribal, clannish, and with many racial divisions, the Chinese were never unified. (This is why the Mongolians were able to take over so relatively easily.) The Chinese were much like American Indians, in a way.
Mao and peasants. Didn't change a thing. Just gave power to a different "few."
But then the Communists came in. Communists usually do very well in disunified situations. Then can get into power. They've long been in power in China, of course, but only for their own profit. They care nothing for peasants. Never did. The infusion of capitolism in China only makes the Communist leaders more wealthy. It doesn't change life for the masses at all.
The Reuters report talks about a "growing middle class," but this is illusionary, by Western standards. Profiteering, yes, but the bull dozing of peasants not the image Communists usually make their sell on. But, they needn't worry. Communist leaders are immutable in China. Their ironies, duplicities, hypocrisies all mean nothing, and US President Clinton did his best to bless China, and the trend continues. The thought is that Communism will evolve into democracy and the economic forces will themselves defeat Communism.
Talk about illusion.
But the lasting truth is, no matter what political theory is being advocated, exonerated, or condemned, the peasants of the world are subject to rude uprooting. The land is there for the taking, and the strong always take it. It isn't a matter of right or wrong; it's a matter of strength. Communism is just another power grab. It has nothing to do with equality or human rights. It is a deceptive, delusive political pitch, and every bit as murderous as any other pitch it decries, in fact more so.
So what are the peasants of the land going to call their unrest now? Human Rights? That was the Communist pitch: equality. (And their academic Communist theorists still have the audacity to claim it!)
But, what is it that keeps masses of people disorganized, living in separate worlds, and subject as shorn sheep to the nearest political mechanism to encounter them? And what is it that yields strength, anyway? What makes those political machines work? Is it the very conditions of political dearth and social organization that engender the sharks?
A New Declaration of Independence
When in the course of human events, one decides to be independent, "a decent respect" for all parties concerned requires a statement of cause.
Any government should exist only to protect the universal rights of man for "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (we mean private property), which "divine" rights apparently are generally lost in the shuffle of those same pursuits.
We know human nature tends to let all this slide, but, we're determined to make things right now, and we mean it in lead and powder. We're taking it on ourselves to resist what we consider government abuse. Fancy that. So back off.
Why, we're espeically ticked off that the American Indian, those "merciless savages," should be used by the government to advocate more government tyranny--even to the point of taking land from American citizens to make profit for international money launderers, politicians, developers, and a few corrupt Indian leaders--and call it all a casino.
We can't have government constantly telling us what to do, when to do it, and how and where. We can't have the government be our enemy.
So, we declare ourselves independent, with the powers that implies.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence (--that's called faith, pal, since we aint' got stats to back us up, but we've got the will, so look out!), we mutually pledge to each other our Lives (that is, our jobs--because we'll no doubt lose them), our Fortunes (--we'll be sued out of all we have and put in jail as criminals), and our sacred Honor.
We don't really expect you to understand that last part. That's our advantage.
On this day, July 3, the day before America's celebration of Independence (July 4), be it known that the commerical industries have averred anew the fundamental element of nationhood: race. Perhaps as unintentionally as inevitably, the pursuit of cosmetic sales, the lust for feminine beauty itself has avowed again the post-Deluvian account of race: the sons (in this case the daughters) of Noah (Genesis 10 & 11).
Obviously, the daughters of Shem, Ham, and Japeth, before
our eyes, in the year AD 2006 (Heb. 5767).
Cheers for NIVEA?
Perhaps, before we celebrate the birth of our nation, we ought to simply reconsider some of the basic, historical precedents for concept of nationhood. Originally, it meant a particular race, a religion, a language, and geographic boundaries. As a former college teacher of humanities, I presented the rise and fall of nations innumerable times, or so it seemed. The patterns were fairly clear. Nationhood was natural. And if your nation had anything that was valuable, if even only land, your nation would eventually be confronted with another nation--there to take yours from you. And thus is the story of nations.
America as a nation presents some real anomalies, historically. The "nation" was obviously formed by British people, who were Caucasian, who were Christian, and who were Protestant. We call them White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. These people created the nation. All others came in on the take later. They can never be credited with having builty the country that is called America, the United States. American Indians have a lot more to do with the shaping of American than do any others coming here later.
But the matter of race seems moot. There may be no point it pursuing it, but there is still the fundamental idea that there are basically three racial types, and people like J. Philippe Rushton still advocate such on a professed scientific basis. The Canadian professor is controversial, of course, but, with the obvious and overwhelming support of the beauty cream industry (--which is no doubt preoccupied with the pursuit of the fountain of youth, or eternity, or religion), Dr. Rushton is as worthy of consideration as is 'free enterprise!' Surely, Americans must respond to that.
Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, professor of evolutionary psychology
and ethnic variations, Unviersity of Western Ontario.
My critics have, in the past, scoffed at my apparent pre-occupation with race. Modern geneticists of course laugh the matter to scorn. But I say, look at the NIVEA add. It speaks for itself. Even at this late age in human history, the pursuit of the beautiful leads us to the same ancient reference, the same triad of aesthetic circumference. There are philosophers who believed that aesthetics is the one truth derivable from human psychology. Certainly the ancient, classical Greek philosophers believed aesthetics was a nature pursuit of consciousness.
It is late in human history, or so it seems. Yet, we're in the same place, aesthetically. Oh yes, modern "quality" laws want to dictate that all is beautiful, when it clearly isn't. The aberrations of modern political ideology are hell-bent on crushing all that is normal and natural and pleasant. Yet, even so, free enterprise reaffirms the human race in it's most basic particulars. NIVEA says it all: "You ain't gone nowhere, baby!" I find that reassuring.
The French team beat the usually unbeatable Brazilian team in the World Cup Soccer quarter finals, and has advanced to the semi-finales against Portugal. That game is scheduled for July 5, Wednesday, in Munich.
It is not peculiar, at the international level, to have players from other countries playing on a "national" team other than their own. In an age of bewildering immigration, it is not uncommon to have sons of foreigners grow up in another country, and become citizens, or even to have been born in that same foreign country. This is understood.
However, there is something peculiar in this French situation. On a team roster of 23 players, 16 are non-Caucasian--15 Negro and 1 Hindu. (Yes, "Hindu" is the historically correct term, not "Indian.") That's 70% of the team. All four forwards (the star players) are Negro; five of the mid-fielders, and six of the defenders are Negro.
Thierry Henry, "French" forward.
The three goalies are native Frenchmen: Fabien Barthez (35), Gregory Coupet (34), and Mickael Landreau (27). Gael Givet (25)and Willy Sagnol (29) are the only two French defenders. Frank Ribery (23) and Zinedine Zidane (34) are the only two white mid-fielders, and Zinedine is not really French. His parents are Kabyles, from southern Algeria.
All the forwards are Negro. Sidney Govou is Beninese (bordering Nigeria); Thierry Henry (29) was born in Paris, but has managed to keep his family origin out of print. Louis Saha was also born in Paris, and has also managed to keep his origins out of print. David Trezeguet, who has made a couple of soccer movies, is the son of an Argentinian. Other racial details are apparently prohibited, and Trezequet was born in Rouen, France.
Though most of the Negro players say they were born in France and want to leave it at that, a few are African nationals. Claude Makelele is from the Congo (Kinshasa); Florent Malouda is from Cayenne, French Guiana; Patrick Vieira is from Senegal (Dakar); Sylvain Wiltord was born in France, but his family is from Guadeloupe. In other words, he is Caribbean, which means the family was part of the 17th century British slave trade. Who knows?
Lilian Thuram is also from the Antilles (Guadeloupe), and not born in France. Willilam Gallas is Guadeloupan. Pasqual Chimbonda is Guadeloupan, from Les Abymes.
So, why the black team? With all the terrible Muslims problems in France, one would tend to look for Arabic players, no? A black team in any case is certainly not the result of a lack of native "caucasian" French players, is it?
But the real point here is this: herds of Caucasian, French, European players are not rushing to play for teams in West Africa, or in the Caribbean. Not even for Ghana, whose national team beat out the United States. There is not a single white individual on Ghana's team. But there are hordes of black players--from all over the third world, dreaming of playing on "white" teams, that is, on European, western teams. (Is it just about money for them?)
Well, not even Franklin Foer can explain it. In fact, he doesn't even address it, this international race factor in world soccer. How Soccer Explains the World: An unlikely theory of globalizaion (Harper, 2004) is on the level of Luc Sante's Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old New York (Farrar Straus Giroux, 1991), that is to say, on a very high level of sociological comprehension. Why, MotherJones even had to interview Foer about it all. Though I'm still diciphering it, I can't see that Foer's text deals with the mangling of nationality on a teams face. He explains how soccer involves nationalism, ethnicism, and brings everything together on a platter of green pitch. However, he does not address the defacing of a national team via race.
After all, this all begs the question of nationalism, and nationalism cannot be separated from ethnicism, to one degree or another. So it is only indirectly suggested by Foer that globalization is through multiculturalism, interracialism, and soccer. Foer exposes the underside of the ball, of course, and how ethnic violence is virtually fostered and breeded by soccer; class struggle is expressed through soccer; racial and cultural values are expressed through soccer.
So, all that really means then is that no one wants to play for Ghana but black Africans. Whites don't want to be black, but many blacks love playing white. Something like that. I'm proud of the Ghana team. I'm not so proud of the French team. Why? It isn't French. It is confusing. It is disconcerting.
Is soccer going to destroy nationality, like some Christians think their Christian religion does? Is this must another giant mixing machine? We've already observed how beauty pageants have suffered the same influx of non-natives representing a foreign country. A foreign girl takes up residence in some far country, and becomes it's national representative in a pageant. Or a family moves to another country, and their daughter is actually born there, and then later becomes the national representative. And some Christians love to think nationality and racial boundaries are to be eroded and removed in the name of Christ. They are worse, I should say, more avid, in this attitutude that Communists. They are as far Left as possible.
I don't understand the big mix. It's like some people are getting a vicarious, subconscious, or subliminal sexual thrill out of mixing things. There must be some sense of triumph in crossing the natural boundaries. Whether one believe in the Creation story, and the Biblical account of the origins of nations, or whether one believes in evolution, the boundaries and the ethnicities are not man-made. But now, the trend is to break them all down. That, indeed, is the work of man. Can it be fruitful? Can it produce a good results?
If I love French food, does that make me French? Is there any real meaning to nationality at this point? Is there any point in saying you're anything? Do we preserve just enough of it to sprinkle on our eggs? Do we keep it recognizable just enough to sell?
I wonder.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001