The vile person shall no more be called liberal,
nor the churl [miser] said to be bountiful.
The words of Isaiah (ca.735 BCE). He spoke of a time to come when the Lord would restore discernment in the land (Isa. 32:5), which had apparently been lost. It was obviously a time of terrible social delusion in ancient Jewish culture. It sounds like an ancient version of Orwellian double-speak. People were not what they appeared to be. Horribly immoral misanthropes were thought of as the opposite of what they really were. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Perhaps we should look more closely. The Hebrew is slightly uncertain, so that we find translations vary, but only slightly. The above quote is from the King James English (KJV) version of the Bible, published in 1611. The Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952) puts it this way:
The fool will no more be called noble,
nor the knave said to be honorable.
But look at the German, French, and Italian translations (evolved from Renaissance translations):
Es wird nicht mehr ein Narr Fuerst heiBen
noch ein Geiziger Herr genannt werden.
(A jester will no more be called prince
nor a miser be named lord.)
On ne donners plus a l'insense le nom de noble,
Ni au fourbe celui de magnanime. (No accents on this software.)
One no longer will give to the senseless the name noble
nor to the deceiver [a place] with the magnanimous.
Lo stolto non sara piu chiamato principe
e l'avaro non sara piu detto magnifico. (No accents on this software.)
The foolish will no more be called prince
and the stingy will no more be said [to be] magnificent.
As if to say, there was a time in which the society had come to mistakenly call the noble fools and madmen, and the oppressive, greed misers charitable, and generous. Can it be? How does it come to be? What causes such usurpation of words, such a complete turnover of meaning? Double-speak must be an ancient art. (Probably dates back to Eden and the serpent!)
The Renaissance translations clearly show that prince, lord, and nobleman once stood for true character. The prince was the caretaker of his people. The lord was devoted to the prosperity and health of his people. Tthe nobleman was responsible for those of the manner, the estate, the castle. "Lord, nobleman, prince," were all synonymous with magnanimity, generousity, and the true spirit of providing for the people. The lord was a protector, a defender, and a provider.
Are the days when noble meant noble forever passed?
Sounds like an Indian warrior to me. American Indian cultures never had such radical distinction of class, of course, but, every man, every brave, was to be a nobleman in a very real sense. The Indian warrior wasn't just a killer. He was a protector, a provider, and a father. I wonder if American Indian culture ever experienced such an Orwellian word revolution?
Old Sioux "nobleman."
In any event, this ancient predicament shows that there are certain social inevitables. Where there is greatness, there is great error. Where there is a lord, there is a devil posing as one. In modern American society, it seems we have fully arrived at such a time. The liberal presents himself as noble and generous, as caring, and honorable for so being. Yet, we find mass murder in the form of abortion among his doctrines on the personal level, and artificial famine and war on the global scene. He despises faith and decency in public, and sympathizes with avowed national enemies. The hordes of attorneys that make up the American Civil Liberties Union fit this ancient biblical verse to the "t." They put on the air of noble defenders of the country's constitution, while seeking to overthrow its every principle and degrade humanity with heartless tyranny.
So, it's happened before, a long time ago. It is part an parcel of the human condition, these topsy-turvy word games. It is the key to revolution, and to the destruction of the establishment, at least in the abstract. As Thomas Hobbes said in his Leviathan (1651),
"...in the right definition of names lies the first use of speech; which the acquisition of science [knowledge]: and in wrong, or no definitions, lies the first abuse; from which procede all false and senseless tenets (ch.3).
The wrong use of words is the destruction of society. The abuse of speech is the end of the world.
Why do people of the world dress differently? Part of the reason is geographical. Clothing is made of materials available from the environment. Grass skirts or bamboo leaves aren't going to be worn at the north pole, nor seal skins in the the congo.
But beyond the practical considerations, there are other reasons why people dress differently. There is the matter of social hierachy, and even religious value expressed in clothing. Religious attire is generally characterized by symbolism. The garments and attendant accessories represent some idea, authority, or power. The more ancient or more primitive the religion, the more obvious this symbolic dress. It is in fact very impractical, and highly specialized for specific occasions. From the archbishop to the shaman, from the patriarch to the witch doctor, the religious attire stands out as different from the normal dress of the society.
So the normal dress would reflect the practical duties of life, the daily logistics of survival. The hunter can't be burdened down with any too much extraneous decor, nor the farmer with the extravaganza of visual display.
Thunder Chief (Blackfoot)
This is all perfectly logical until we come to the consideration of war. Why does war call forth such radically altered clothing? Anciently, we associate armour with battle. Protection. That certainly affected clothing. But, say, in the case of the American Indian, it seems that often the warrior war his most elaborate clothing into battle! And this glorious display of attire was apparently not always for protection. He may have believed that that it had supernatural power for protection, but he must have known a bone-beaded breast plate would never stop an arrow, let alone a bullet.
Much of it seems to relate to intimidation. It was to excite fear or confusion. It was almost akin to the idea of disguise. The warrior was only a man, but he dressed up like something half way between an animal and a bird of prey.
Looking Glass (Nez Perce) 1832-1877
Perhaps this custom was not so unusual, nor has it entirely faded from the most modern of societies. When the rich and the glamorous meet together for deals, for debts, for debates, etc., they often wear their most impractical, elaborate clothing. They don't meet for a physical contest, but rather for an intellectual, or financial contest. They meet for awards dressed in impossible, irreplicable clothing. They distinquish themselves through uniqueness of display. It is certainly a contest--of who can make the greatest impression.
And within the general society, people dress differently for different occsions. This is perfectly normal. And there are social strata distinguished by a particular kind of clothing. There is the business suit versus the golf outfit. There is the blue collar worker's jump suit versus the scrubs of the medical personnel.
Society is always 'tribalized.' Humanity is a collection of groupies. There is no other way in which humanity has ever existed. Clothing is part of the expression of these groups. The gang clothes and styles are obviously group oriented, with special signs or indications of gang identity. No one thinks of corporate attire as gang-related, but it certainly depicts a specific stratum of society. It is a language in and of itself, just like gang attire.
Any clothing is a kind of costume. It inevitably expresses something, whether intended or not, whether designed to or not. The effects may be relative, subjective, and seemingly unimportant, but they are nevertheless real effects. Clothing communicates a message of some kind, one way or another. We learn to look through it, passed it, over it, but, by the very fact that we do this, we admit to the inexorable effects of what we're wearing.
In the ancient Middle East, there may have existed a certain cultural uniformity among the common people. The robes, beards, and kafiyas of men, for example, were so similar that more than once Jesus escaped arrest simply by blending in with the crowd. (Luke 4:30; John 8:59). This would imply even a similarity of colors in the clothing.
Certainly today, in many Islamic countries, women can appear scarcely distinguishable, in dark robes.
Certainly, in western societies, individualism is primary. The premium is on distinguishable clothing. And yet, at the same time, the society passes through fad after fad. And fads exemplify the group identity! And for all the individuality manifested in the automobile industry, still there are groups of cars, representing different groups of people in society.
So, in the last analysis, we retreat to the abstract, in intellectual "custom" when faced with the impossible contradictions of the practical. Clothing is both individual and collective. It represents, to some extent, individual choice, but also a group identity. The one conclusion is that gang-related clothing, rap rags, all intentionally express distorted values, warped social mores, and often blatant immorality. But then, what about bikinis?
The hallmark of egotism is oversized clothes these days. Of course, nudity, body shape, etc., is also a raw manifestation of the same, but, if there must be clothes, the primitives among us assert themselves through hideous vanity. For some, the street is a stage. School is the spotlight. It's a grand, egregious show.
'Hoodlums' rightly bear such a name, with their hoods, hugely oversized jackets, pants, etc. It is as if they're saying, "Hey, man! Look at me! Look at me!" It is to captivate the attention. In fact, it is a most arrogant demand. It is for the purpose of intentional outrage. In American society, with the austere conservatism and modesty at the historical Puritan foundation, this modern trend of extreme, over-indulgence appears most tragic as it truly is.
Extravagance with no taste, without subtilty, without finesse, is a horrible thing when it's off-stage. But an entire class of folks now think they're always on stage. They have no home elsewhere. They are without foundation within themselves. They are spiritually, psychologically homeless. They live for the impression they can make with manipulating their appearance. They live in your eyes. This is the quintessence of heathenism. Cut the body. Scar the body. Look scarey, look intimidating. Look painful, look deadly. Drape gold and silver over that miserable body. Exaggerated clothes, shoes, hair, whatever. Just make sure you over-do it. Make sure it's a good show. Make sure it demands attention--for no other reason. It is the template of evil.
The ridiculous outward show is a desperate attempt to cover a dearth of interior resources. The outside circus loudly announces a vapid, empty arena within.
But it's even worse. The over-sized clothes most obviously express an undersized soul. The exaggeration of size on the outside is a public confession of nothingness, and worse, of a suffering deformity underneath.
Mr. Hyde, a classic example of the ascent of the
lower nature. Most theatrical renditions of Hyde,
however, fail to depict the most unique element of
Stevenson's vision of evil: the diminution of physical
size. Hyde's clothes become grossly oversized as
he become more low in nature.
Robert Louis Stevenson forever dramatized this in his famous story, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886). The addiction of Dr. Jekyll brought out his weaker, baser side, who posed as a different person, Mr.Hyde. The descriptions are telling. Mr. Hyde also became progressively worse as a human being. Mr.Hyde came more and more to enjoy evil, to the point of violence, and finally murder. He enjoyed the very act of killing. As Hyde worsened, he became more muscular, more animated, more animalistic.
In a stroke of literary genious, Stevenson adds that the devolving Mr. Hyde become more diminutive in stature. As he become more amoral, he become smaller in physical size. "His clothes were enormously too large for him--in every measurement," wrote Dr.Lanyon upon encountering Mr. Hyde in person. Dr. Jekyll confessed that the character of Hyde was only fear and hatred.
Evil causes diminution, as well as degradation. There is a Hebrew word for bow, kara, which means to bow down, or to sink down, to couch. In Isaiah it is in the text, "every knee shall bow" before the Lord. (Isa. 45:23). It is as if to say that, before the Lord, all are diminished. By association, the guilty, the criminal, must crouch down, must pretend to be smaller than he is, so as not to be seen. This is the phenomenology of the behavior itself. The diminutive effect of over-sized clothes is abundantly obvious. It represents the low nature of the wearer.
So then, does not this classic Stevenson story give some insight in to the gang attire, the "rap" industry, the exaggerant clothing, and the whole enterprise of human degradation? Their foul, putrid mouths, with gold in their teeth, pathetically portray an emptiness beyond redemption. They are slaves again, bought and sold on the market of hate. Their assertions are low, and demonic. Their over-sized clothing is a faithful testimony of their miscreant misanthropy, and their delight in diminution.
That such a spectacle of foolishness should become a predominant sell in any culture should cause the fathers of the nation to tremble. Instead of allowing marketers to sell the vestments of victimhood, decked in precious metal, the leaders of the nation should outlaw this nonsense before it robs the next generation of the ability to reason at all. (Or, has that already happened?) Instead of allowing dealers to aggrandize an abject, narcissistic fantasy of anger and self-justification, the nation's authorities should encourage the young to do healthy service for the society, to offer help to the needy, to the whole country.
But no, the vice of self-idolization is beyond the reach of the law-makers. They're out of the picture when it comes to social reality. The only social architecture they are concerned with is in fact the very indulgence of self. The industry of abortion that they created, blessed, and hoped to make permanent, is simply a design to give selfish people full opportunity to destroy others. Much of American law today is like that drug Dr. Jekyll used to discover Mr. Hyde.
(We might even wonder if this oversized clothing phenomenon has anything to do with the Muslim preference for robes, and the elongated, extended impression of the personal ego. They leaders have certainly made every effort to associate their robes with the most murderous element in the human race. I'd say that's pretty low.)
In Hammond, Indiana, Morton High School principle Theresa Mayerik sent 128 students home on the first day of classes--"for wearing the wrong clothes" the AP report misleadingly states. The liberal line will always have it that anything that smacks of discipline or order is to be associated with Nazis, loss of freedom, or irrational tyranny. Not that we would associate discpline and order with the American public school system, but, apparently there are some limits to what can be 'tolerated.' Fancy that.
"The offending attire -- including baggy pants, low-cut shirts, tank tops and graphic T-shirts -- are banned from classrooms. Students were also cited for cell phone use."
They don't call'em "hoods" for nothing. From the
MichiganDaily, Ann Arbor.
Baggy pants? How about pants that hang passed the buttocks, showing the underwear? Like the kind worn by the Negro gangs, and now the Hispanic gangs. (Take a look at the Texas Youth Commission statement, or the California legislation on gang clothing.) Low-cut shirts? How about the kind that show as much skin as possible, guy's or girl's? Tank tops? How about underwear, or the least amount of covering for a girl? There are other ways to describe this clothing than the political correct "baggy pants" routine. A whole lot more is going on here than baggy pants. The typical media clip is just trying to be provocative. "They're taking away the freedoms of the students!" as in a typical, sophomoric protest--that's the obvious intentions of the AP article.
Graphic T-shirts? How about shirts illustrating sex and death, blasphemy and other entertainment? Like celebrating every wicked impulse, encouraging every self-destructive, socially destructive passion. Cell phones? Well, no drugs deals allowed at school. No distractions.
The kind of dress we're talking about here is not dress, but outrage. Basic child psychology knows that it's all about behavior. Slop, outrage, insult, violence, destruction, this is all behavior that tempts the youngster--who is growing impatient of control anyway. Yes, in today's world, there are religions that foster such immaturity, making it a chronic state of social deformity.
What are gangs? The sociological outcome of broken homes? Hardly. A gang is a vortex of vice, a pretense of security. According to Solomon, gangs have nothing to do with socio-economic conditions. They have to do with lust, vice, and power. Proverbs 1:10-19.
The Galveston Independet School Districts dress code puts it pretty plainly: Caps, hats, excessive jewelry, decorative contacts, visible body piercing, tooth caps and any other items deemed to be distracting are strictly prohibited. Clothing with logos or inappropriate messages related to alcohol, drugs, sex, violence or vulgarity are prohibited. Also, at all schools, flip flops, backless shoes and house slippers are not allowed.
The Bryant Intermediate School (of Salt Lake City, Utah) has a code expressed in terrible exactitude:
Accessories and Attachments: Accessories and attachments such as chains on wallets, bracelets, chokers, spikes on boots or any accessory or excessive amounts of accessories which is considered a risk to the health and safety or cause distraction from the educational process may not be worn.
Backpacks: Backpacks brought to school must be stored in lockers during the school day. They are not permitted in classrooms, hallways, gym, cafeteria, or auditorium.
Gang Related Clothing: Gang related clothing will not be tolerated at school. Bryant follows the district policy prohibiting the wearing of any gang symbol, badge, sign, lettering, hairdo, or jewelry, which is recognized or acknowledged by area police officials to designate a gang.
Shoes: Shoes should be worn at all times. Thongs and slippers are not acceptable footwear.
Hair: Brightly colored hair or any hairdo that may cause disruption is not allowed at school. Hair should be of natural color.
Coats and Hats: Hats, bandanas, hooded jackets/clothing, vests (coats, fleece, tech). Etc., or other types of head coverings cannot be worn while at school. Coats, coat vests, jackets, scarves, sunglasses and. gloves must be kept in lockers.
Even the National Association of Elementary School Principles offers a traditional hem-hawing package of talking points. They at least have to show they are aware and are concerned, or "deeply troubled," though carefully not taking a position (which is tantamount to "tolerance").
Oh, well, at least the schools aren't allowing the dress code of the Vermont tennagers: nudity. Why not? It's been a hot summer up in Brattleboro. Kids have been going around stark naked. "So far they haven't been arrested or ticketed: public nudity isn't illegal in the town of 13,000 people, unless it's done to arouse sexual gratification," says the Reuters report.
"We have a nuclear power plant a few miles away and a ridiculous war in the Middle East, countries getting bombed," said Ian Bigelow, a 23-year-old who had gathered with some of his friends outside a bookstore. "So why's it such a big problem if we chose to get nude?"
Anyone looking to hire outstanding logicians? Put an ad in the Brattleboro Reformer, where they say "Moral compasses needed in Iraq," or put an ad at Brattleboro Union High School, where the mission is "to provide excellent and varied opportunities in a safe and respectful school so that all students reach their fullest potential." The students can obviously handle figures, of one kind or another, maybe.
A recent Ohio story pleads for reconsideration. A former lay minister of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jeffrey Lundgren (56), was convicted of murdering a family of five back in 1987. That was the same year he was ousted from the RLDS church. He is scheduled to be executed in October, 2006. The AP report refers to Lundgren as a "religious cult leader." Could this be a complete contradition of terms? What kind of cults are there that are not religious? What religion is there that could not be referred to as cultic? What is culture but the cultivation of society through religion?
Jeffery Lundgren, facing execution for murder.
"Cult" is a pejorative, negative term, to be sure. Religious leaders define it as a religion that centers on a human being, a human leader, a human person. Christian leaders of course are quick to point out that their leader is Christ, a divine being, not just a man. But, in the eyes of the unbeliever, Christianity often seems like a cult. For that matter, Islam is a truer cult, for it intensely idolized a man, Mohammad.
A cult these days is sociological phenomenon distinguished in great part by its relatively small numbers. A huge, socially 'legitimate' religion would never be called a cult. A cult is a small group of weird people withdrawn from general society, living in reclusive circumstances, and separating themselves from society in general. Naturally, reporters are going to call a anti-social group lead by Jeffrey Lundgren a cult. Cults require very strict, circumspect, disciplined behavior. One man is a supreme command. (It's usually a man.) Jim Jones was a cult leader. Many people believe Adolt Hitler was a cult leader.
Of course, the occult is again something else, though in many ways similar. The occult is that which is hidden, or secret. A person into the occult is one who seeks connection to the supernatural, magic, or whatever powers are behind the obvious. It is definitely another type of power grab.
Cults and the occults are basically formed by social withdrawal. The people are withdrawalists. They are vulnerable to severe authority. Societies at large are replete with social groupings of one kind or another, but, most groups seek to have influence or distinction within the larger society, and are dependent on it. The withdrawalists are rather independent. We could say they are dependent on being independent. It is a chronic disposition. They must separate, and they must justify their separation.
The AP reports says, "In an unsworn statement at his 1990 trial, Lundgren told the jury that he and his cult were preparing for the second coming of Jesus Christ, which they believed would occur at the Reorganized Church's temple in Kirtland. He said the spiritually unclean had to be dealt with."
This is curious. The group believed in Jesus Christ. Technically, then, they shouldn't be called a cult. They were a church. An intense church, but a church. So, is the Christian church still to be called a cult? Apparently so, according to the AP. But if so, then where is the line drawn between religion and cults, and the occult?
By these definitions, Islam is most definitely a serious cult. In Amil Imani's article, "A Look at the Muslims' Mindset," (August 17, 2006), he says this:
A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulateable instruments in the hands of authority figures.
I've always understood the Christian religion to emphasize the opposite, or free-will. Christianity is about developing a new self, not simply humbling the old one. There are strikingly unique elements in the Christian religion, as I have understood it. However, there is plenty of the authoritarianism in it as well. I would consider that a perversion, however. Christianity is ultimately a religion of love for others. Devotion to the good will of others. It's not really about control, in the social sense. Islam focuses on something else, apparently.
If culture is all about cultivating cults and the occult, in one way or another, we simply have to choose whatsoever social grouping is healthiest, not only for ourselves, but for others as well. The modern media may never let religion be called anything but a cult anymore. Be that as it may, we'll just have to make sure we're in the right cult, cultivating the right 'occult'--the right powers.
It is heart breaking to learn that US military recruiters have been sexually abusing young applicants. The news, faithful to avoid telling the whole story, of course, presents us with the devastating impression of the current state the military. Consistently lamenting the noble military performance in Iraq, the media has gone after the military on the home front--even at the front door. The media, apparently dedicated to America's demise, tells the horrible stories of recruiting officers taking sexual advantage of 'innocent' young women who are trying to enlist in the service of the United States. The news could not tell the story in a more outrageous way. How tragic! What failure! And so forth.
Former U.S. Marine recruiter Shedrick Hamilton is overwhelmed with emotion
during an interview at the Oneida Correctional Facility in Rome N.Y., Monday,
June 26, 2006. Hamilton was convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl who
wanted to enlist. AP Photo/Kevin Rivoli
The Associate Press, stalwart representative of half-truths, conducted an "investigation," no less, for over six months. That's real 'patriotism' in itself. We can all rest so much easier, knowing the news is searching out the truth for us.
Liberal and racist as it is, however, the media woulnd't dare give us a breakdown of the socio-economic/racial factors in the story. No contextual perspective. The AP report (Martha Mendoza) does however, in spite of itself, gives the distinct impression that the sexual "misconduct" in these cases was generally initiated by the young women themselves, who later claimed abuse and blame the recruiting officer entirely.
Ethan Walker, who spent eight years in the Marine Corps including a stint as a recruiter from 1998 to 2000, said he was warned. “They told us at recruiter school that girls, 15, 16, are going to come up to you, they're going to flirt with you, they're going to do everything in their power to get you in bed. But if you do it you're breaking the law,” he said.
So, why blame the military? It's low class girls, probably from sexually abused backgrounds, and quite willing to get sexually involved, again and again. An aggressive military man, in uniform, is a hot kill for them. It's an exciting opportunity. It's a new find. These girls have no moral standard or honor to begin with. It's been robbed from them at birth. They are natural predators. Men on duty, alone, in private quarters, are sitting ducks for these kind of manipulative young girls--many of whom are probably emotionally disturbed to boot.
Ah, but it isn't just a male/female thing. " Former Navy recruiter Joseph Sampy, 27, of Jeanerette, La., is serving a 12-year sentence for molesting three male recruits." "One of Sampy's victims is suing him and the Navy for $1.25 million. The trial is scheduled for next spring." So much for homosexuals in the military.
So, yes, sexual "misconduct" occasionally happens. Among the Army's 8,000 recruiters, 53 were accused of it. That's just overwhelming, isn't it, especially when we're conveniently not told the outcome of the cases? The AP report is yearning to smear the military, yet in spite of the headlines, the opening and closing parts of the report, the substance of the report shows that clearly the girls are on the take. The legal system has taught them all to accuse. They are not only predators, they are liberal predators. They initiate the temptation, goad the recruiter into lust, then accuse him. And the girls know exactly what they're doing. The systems works for them.
Ask any social worker. Ask anyone who works with lower class, 'underprivileged' youth--who are growing up in abnormal, sexually perverted circumstances. The AP report is about the failure of the military. This BadEagle Journal entry is about the failure of the news.
Obviously, the double-standard news media wants perfection out of the military, yet degrades it every opportunity. Never mind about the whoredoms of professional news. Alas, news people apparently don't care one way or another about their own image. They just want inside scoop, carereer-making stories, and the right to get the news--without responsibility, without shame, and without consequence. They're not looking out for us at all. They're looking out for themselves. News is a lusus naturae of mean greed. The way this AP story about sexually promiscuous young girls was handled is a classic example. The "investigation" was under the express idendity of "military sexual misconduct," when the very facts stated show that it is about the viciousness of nasty young women. But that would have been sexist, or chauvinist (to use an older term). That would have offended the feminists. So the story is about embarrassing the military, dramatizing the fallen, failing military. That's the AP story. The truth is something else.
The Great White Father was supposed to take care of us. If we stayed on our reservations, the government would gives us harden sugar, old coffee, and rotten meat "as long as the grass grows and the wind blows." Well, what about our dental, long term health, and education? Those old, historical treaties leave a lot unprovided for. Maybe we need to sit down in Washington and discuss the updating of the terms. The cost of taking care of Indians is a lot higher today than when our tired old warriors sat around the camp fire talking about the wars.
In the mean time, the Third World racists like creol Hugo Chavez are out to make a show of charity to American Indians. He already made a deal with the Penobscots of Maine, selling them heating oil at $1.47 a gallon instead of $2.52. The Indians saved more than a million dollars last winter. (Hey, what happened to that casino proposal back in 2002? They were going to build a $650 million dollar casino in southern Maine, off the turnpike. There are already two casinos within a hundred miles of Penobscot High Stakes Bingo. I guess they aren't Indian owned. I guess the Indian bingo isn't brining in enough dough for the winter heating bills.) Now Chavez is looking to sell discounted oil to the Indians of the northwest, where he hopes to find other allies against "the imperialist power" of America.
Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, to of the biggest liars in
Latino history. American Indians must avoid such liars.
Haven't we suffered enough?
I say stuff it. Chavez, tend to your own miserable poor! Leave American Indians alone. Let no American Indian tribe be so incredibly naive as to think the pathological egotist president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has any concern for American Indians. Look how he neglects his own hordes of poor! In 1998, the CIA reports that 48% of the Venezuelan population was below the poverty line! Fewer than 50% of Venezuelan children complete their secondary education due to the shortage of schools and widespread poverty. Poverty is the leading political issue in Venezuela. Some say is has dramatically increased since Chavez took office.
This is dictatorial communism, just like that in North Korea. The people perish. The arrogant and immature tyrannts live in luxury. Sure, they thought Chavez was one of them, the poor did. But he isn't.
Chavez is an international showman, who cares nothing for his own people, let alone American Indians. He's on the Turd World ego trip to insult America. That's all he lives for, he and the rest of those "Latino" maniacs. (And yes, they're hooked up with Islamic Iran as well. It's been going for decades. Castro is big in Iran.) It is completely racist for Chavez, or any other "skin" to presume that Indians are like racial whores, willing to unite with anyone against America. This deeply insults Indians.
American Indians insult themselves to even consider communication with a fake like Hugo Chavez. Worse for Indians, we insult America, our home, when we allow ourselves to be flattered by arrogant "indigenous" dictators of the Third World. They would have destroyed all American Indians, had they the power, had they been here instead of the white Protestants. We would have been either enslaved or killed. That's the policy of the "Latino" native, anxiously imitating his Spanish conquerors, rather than his own indigenous people.
American Indians are not Latino. We're not Chinese. We're not Indonesian, or Polynesian (Hawaiian). We are American Indians. We are not African, not Arab, and not Hindu. Let it ever be so. We are proud of who we are. We need no approbation or sympathy from lying Latinos. We need no help--we should never accept any help--from the enemies of America. They are fake. They don't care about us. They only want to insult America.
Indians need to be proud, and stand up for America. We'll be better off if we do.
Richard Poe presents an interesting phenomenon. As a person, and an author, he is something to seriously consider--if one seriously considers the truth. Let's take a minute to understand the truth, and then Poe.
The ancient Greek word for truth is aletheia (a-lay'-thi-a). It is a combination of 1) the prefix a, which conveys the negation or privation of the word following, and 2) the word lethe (lee'-thay), meaning forgetfullness: a-lethe, as it were--the absense or negation of forgetfulness--aletheia. That is, truth. Truth then is not something unknown or forgotten. It is in your face. Regarding the first component of aletheia, for example, a-moral, a-theist, or a-sexual, all mean "without." An amoral person is a person without morals, or, a person who does not believe there are any such things as morals. An a-theist is "a-theus" a person without God, or any god. And so forth. The second component, lethe, comes from lanthano (lan-than'-o), which means to be hidden. It has an application to ignorance or unawareness in the mind, as in something being hidden from one's consciousness. Lethe, then, is that which is not just forgotten, but hidden.
So, truth as in aletheia means that which is not hidden, not forgotten, but something that is out in the open and known. The logistics of the meaning here imply that truth is not covered up, not concealed. It does not have to be searched for, or revealed. It is apparent. Truth is obvious.
The truth about Poe is therefore very ironic. Poe has been pounding out the truth about Left politics for a number of years now. But the truth, or the fact, also is that it all seems to have been well hidden--and continues to be hidden. The media seems somehow to generate a state of Lethe. Who knows? Perhaps people in general prefer forgetfulness.
When Poe was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly ( May 18, 2004) about Poe's NewsMax article, "George Soros' Coup," one of the things Poe expressed was concern that the Soros factor would be ignored--shall we say, "hidden," and the Soros Left machine would continue to subvert American society. O'Reilly bragged about his 7 million viewers (FAIR says it was 2 million a night in 2003) and that he would follow the story carefully. The fact is, O'Reilly hasn't had Poe on since, and has given precious little coverage to anything involving George Soros.
The "Soros' Coup" article was published in May, 2004. Two months before, Poe's book, Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists was published by WorldNetDaily. The Amazon rank is #131,570, but Poe wasn't finished. He just published (with David Horowitz) The Shadow Party, which is now Amazon's #482. The Shadow Party is a full expose of the Soros machine and its sinister intents on America and the world. Of course, it has generated severe attack from the Left. Using the occasion of an advertisement by the book's publisherThomasNelson, Leftist internet central MediaMatters.org demanded a full response from Poe and Horowitz regarding previous assaults MediaMatters made on the "truth" of the book and its claims about Soros. MediaMatters seems strongly to imply that Poe and Horowitz are somehow anti-Semitic, for daring to accuse the young Soros of wartime collaboration with the Nazis -a charge which they describe as a "smear." MediaMatters is a top-of-the-line professional Left organ, and is giving the works to Poe and Horowitz.
Well, what exactly is the truth about that? Let's hear it from Poe, in "George Soros and the Nazis: The Whole Truth, In His Own Words," a recent blog on Poe's The Shadow Party
On December 20, 1998, Soros had the following exchange with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes:
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes. (4)
We do not judge or condemn Mr. Soros for youthful actions taken under duress, and in fear for his life. We do note, however, that the choices he made reflected aspects of his character which would resurface in later years.
The further "truth" is, many Jews were willing to be used by the Nazis to deal with other Jews. Soros knows that, and has no qualms about saying what he did. Many Jews "survived" by such tactics. I think the smear is on the authors of The Shadow Party, not Soros.
Now, back to Greek. Not to consider a metaphor, but the real meaning of "smear," which would be basically to lie, the word for saying something false is pseudomai (soo'-do-mah-ee). It is from the word pseudes (soo'-dace), meaning untrue, and also erroneous, deceitful, and even wicked. (Pseudos means a lie.) Remember, in the Greek version of reality, truth is not hidden. Truth is something visible, apparent, in the open. So, a lie is a kind of covering of the truth. A lie is not an entity unto itself. It is a leech. Its existence is relative only to the truth.
(Coverings, eh? As in 'robes'? That should give us a new take on the Muslims hijob. )
So what about Poe? Someone who is always stating the truth, he is. No, I won't say "revealing" the truth. The truth, according to the ancient Greeks, always stands revealed, in plain sight. Poe merely reflects what is true. So who and what are the great coverers in the world? Who are the great concealers? Why do they rush to bury the truth? What is the advantage? Why does falsehood sell?
And the final question, Why isn't Poe on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC every night? Well, maybe some truths are more immediately digestable than others. Some truths are more exciting. But let's remember, the kinds of covered-up truths that led to the Nazi regime, the present Islamic threat in the world, and monster of Hezbollah, are not the kinds of truths we want "hidden." When the obvious and apparent truth in this dimension becomes obscured through lying, we may learn too late a new, apocalyptic meaning of the word lethe and her Stygian streams.
(By the way, Poe is on a blog blitz now, too, with four new blogs and a new web site in development: Scribe and Scroll, Shadow Party, Richard Poe, New York State Notebook, and Poe.com. This is all about facts, just calm, rational facts. There really isn't a lot of opinion. I wonder if that is the reason for Poe's absense on nightly national news.)
Richard Poe
All are the problems in the world cause by demons?
As a life-long student of the Bible, I've often wondered if modernity didn't bring a new guise of demonism with it. As a student of Yale Divinity, I was was quite sure it did. Today, as mere observer of the news, I don't see how there can be any doubt. But let's put this all in some kind of context.
Demons, spirits, gods, and ghosts have been part and parcel of human belief (and at least in that sense, part of human "experience,") from the beginning. However, that such psychological affectations should become a dominant social condition, and a theme of religious emphasis, seems less frequent, and occurs in ages of great anxiety and perplexity.
Lets take 1st Century Palestine. In the gospel of Matthew, such conditions are described. I've often pondered the significance of 4:23, 8:16,17, 10:7,8, and 11:4-6, for example. These verses depict massive public exorcisms, healings of irreversible desease, and even resurrections. These things are, of course, basically unbelievable. Fantastic. Supernatural.
But, the idea that there should be, in the ancient world, masses of people "possessed of devils...lunatick"--what we today call addicted, or mentally ill--this strickes me as peculiar. Furthermore, Matthew is speaking of ancient Jewish society (before 70 BCE). This is indeed mysterious, for it doesn't even mention the agonies of heathendom. The mission of Jesus was to "the house of Israel." (Matt. 10:5,6). The world came later (28:18-20).
What of today? Are there mass possessions? I consider Islam a forumla for possession. It is a giant sociological condition, indeed. And then what about addictions? What about abject mental illness, sadness, irreversible depression, and the whole medication bit? (Where is Jesus? God, help us. These conditions are overwhelming!)
Biotherapy Clinic, San Fransisco
There's a new "illness" in Japan now, which they're calling hikikomori, a severe withdrawal from society, often accompanied by irrational outbursts of rage, violence, and even murder. There is a most pathetic story in the BBC online news from 2002. It tells of a hikikomori son who wanted to kill his father. The so-called experts say hikikomori is deeply rooted in the Japanese psyche. It affects chiefly young men.
%3Cbr%3E){kind=link}
What are they, lost Samuri warriors, looking for an enemy? They find none, so they label all society as the enemy? Sounds similar to the American Indian suicide problem amoung Indian youth. Warriors without an enemy. They turn on themselves--the last act of heroism. The last breath of the noble savage. (Ah, the Indians are ever so noble.)
Suicide is dominating Islam, too, but it is a most ignoble delusion. The mind of the mass murderers is even more deluded by evil. Islam has no enemies. This is imaginary. This is just demonic delusion. The mass-murderer (conveniently and deceptively called a "suicide bomber") is self-congratulatory, self-inflamatory, and vice-gripped in spiritual auto-eroticism. Nothing noble in Islam. Why? They must murder others. They haven't enough dignity to kill only themselves. They have no self-esteem. No pride. Only a lust for murder. A murderer has no enemy.
The true warrior always knows his enemy. A man of true spirit sees the enemy where others see only blame. Indolence, violence, vice--these are enemies. The war of kindness is never fought by the demonic. To wage love on humanity is not for cowards. To produce something valuable for society is not the work of the chronically self-obssessed. The selfish, spoiled brat cannot achieve a worthy existence. Selfishness is also a vice, and self the demon!
But on the matter of radical demonic possession, where is the deliverance? Modern medicine, modern psychiatry, and modern social programs have availed little if anything. The deformed multiply before our eyes. The numbers are out of control.
Ah, is it the time of the end, after all? Are "the spirits of devils working miracles" going forth to the whole world to bring about the Apocalypse? (Rev. 16:14). Who knows? All that is presently apparent is the fact that experts continually describe the maladies, rather than identify the cause. To the modern mind, the descriptive is causative. There is a total breach of effect. It is the tyranny of teleology. The mind has been rear-ended. Ontology has become intellectual suicide. It is tautological, in myriad guises. Perhaps modernity, particularly its child, science, is indeed host of mass public possession. Consider the whole policy of abortion. Perhaps science is demonic.
Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Syrian President Bashar Assad, have both praised Hebzbollah for its performance against Israel.
"god's promises have come true," Ahmadinejad pronounced to a mob in Arbadil (in northwestern Iran). "On one side, it's corrupt powers of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionists ... with modern bombs and planes. And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on god."
The primitive mass murderers receive the blessing of the Islamic leader of Iran.
Syrian president Assad said that Washington's plans for the Middle East were made into "an illusion" by Hezbollah's resistance to the Israeli military during the 34-day conflict.
More praise from the financiers of mayhem.
Hezbollah fired rockets intentionally on Israeli civilians, not at the Israeli military. This is praiseworthy? Israel drug the whole battle out because it tried desperately to spare civilians in southern Lebanon, and used minimal force--minimal compared to what it could have used. This is called weakness or defeat?
Islamic President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delights
in the death of Muslims.
No. This is called lying. The western media is doing the world no favors by aggrandizing these lies in the name of free speech, news, balance, or any other name. Lie repeated often enough indeed become "illusions" of truth, as Assad would have it. It's called propaganda, of which western liberal media is the faithful servant.
Syrian President, Bashar Assad, happy to see southern Lebanon
destroyed.
Ah, those wonderful, murderous Muslim youth. And women are involved now, too (with interesting effects). Bombs will be strapped to babies, if they already haven't been. (Globe-Intel says they have.) It is the vice of murder. Murder of self and others, this is the god of Islam. Murder. This is the passionate path of jihad. Isn't it a glorious prospect? Forget heaven and the virgins. This isn't what anyone's thinking about when they go to death. They are thinking about death. The passion of murder. It is a blinding lust, a vice, nothing more.
I have called it an evil spell, or magic, under which any believing Muslim is liable to fall. Jihad is the "holiest" path in the cursed Qur'an. Anyone can take that path, if they so desire. More and more are desiring it. It is the path of murder.
"The depravity of our enemy knows no bounds." says Bill Roggio, on The Fourth Rail. He talks about the use of women, children, and mentally disabled as suicide murderers. And this is in the context of Sunni Muslims against Shiite Muslims in Iraq! These people are into satanic blood lust. This isn't about religion or politics. This is about the passion of murder. These people have no concept of the true God. Their god is death.
Any other description is a lie. Any other explanation falls short, and to promote inaccuracy of identification, in such perilous circumstances is a lethal lie. All promoters of lies should realize this. The media is promoting jihad. The media is complicit with destruction. The media is on trial now. The media advances mass murder.
This is the result of lying. Lying is a vice also. Essentially, we're talking about sin. Yes. That's what it used to be called. Sin. Solomon wrote, "the sinner shall be holden with the cords of this sins." Proverbs. 5:22. Sin is vice. Vice is what today is called "addiction." Godless psychologists like to call it a personality disorder, a mental disease, a sickness. The treatment is prolonged and often ineffective. "Sin" is the preacher's territory. He doesn't seem to be all that effective these days either.
But let there be no mistake: murder is sin. Real sin. Sin is not the kind of thing humanity can do anything about. It takes divine intervension. That used to be called being "saved." These Muslims need to be saved, indeed. It's not just that the world needs to be saved from them, though that would seem to suffice; they need to be saved from themselves. They are destroying themselves. Their leaders congratulate them!
Ahmadinejad and Assad just praised Hezbollah for the destruction of southern Lebanon! Think of it. These maniacal men, these 'possessed' presidents celebrate the death of Muslims! They encourage more of it! They delight in it. That's what's happening. No lie can cover such a loud fact--unless one is willing to believe a lie, or such a strong delusion.
Lying has a power. Lying carries a malignant spell with it, just like any other sin.
Beware, all.
We should have taken bets on the Ahmadinejad interview with Mike Wallace. Bad Eagle forums spelled it out three days before. What CBS called "Iranian Leader Opens Up" should have been called, "Iranian leader allowed to lie." It was a episode in which the Iranian leader was allowed to lie, to give a totally false image of himself, to publicly perjure himself, to utterly misrepresent his nation, and all the while trying to make America look bad, and Bush look evil. This is the obviously anti-American intent of CBS and Mike Wallace. This is our liberal media. But we all knew that. We should have wagered on what Wallace would ask, and what Ahmadinejad would say. An easy call.
Islamic Republic of Iran President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Most egregious was Ahmadinejad's misrepresentation of his own attitutde toward the Jews. Of course, this was cut from the 60 Minutes interview, but, Wallace talked about it on Sean Hannity's radio show, August 10. Ahmadinejad, Justifying himself, proffering before the world that he did not hate the Jews, he proclaimed that Iran had hosted Jews for centuries. Many Iranian parliament seats were filled with Jews. Why, Iran did not hate Jews.
Mike Wallace and President Ahmadinejad
The fact is there have been Jews in Iran since 722 BCE, if not a decade before. The ancient northern kindgom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, and Jews were taken captive and place in Iran, among other places. (II Kings 17:6). They dwelt Iran ever after. In fact, during WWII, Iranian Jews living in Germany and in France were not considered Jews by the Nazis. The Iranian government pleaded with Berlin not to persecute the "Mussavi"--the Persian followers of Moses. They were members of a Muslim sect, it was said. They were Iranian in origin, and not Semitic. The Nazis spared them, indeed. (See, Abbas Milani, The Persian Sphinx, 2001. Milani's biography of Amir A. Hoveyda is a fascinating piece. Milani was also interviewed by Persian Heritage Magazine, Summer 2006. He was a teacher at the National University of Tehran, but left. "If I cannot teach and talk about what I believe to be the truth, there was no reason for me to continue there." He lives in California now.)
So Ahmadinejad sites the Jewish population of Iran, a population with whose presence he had nothing to do, as evidence that he is not prejudiced against Jews. The Jews that were spared because the Iranian government said they were a Muslim sect, are held up by Ahmadinejad as proof he is not anti-Semitic. That's makes wonderful sense. The State of Israel must be wiped off the map, or Jews must have their state in Germany, or in America, but, Ahmadinejad does not want to kill Jews. Jews have no right to exist as a politica state in Palestine, but its okay for Iranian Jews to sit in the Iranian parliament. Well, why not have a Jewish state in Iran?
Ahmadinejad would not talk about Iran. He would not be questioned about human rights violations, or the $100 million a year Iran sends to Hezbollah. He would not acknowledge the role the Islamic government of Iran has played, and is playing, in the murder of Jews in Israel, or the consequent destruction of Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad was simply a full-fledged liar, having it his way, before a trembling, 88-year-old Jewish American reporter.
It is a shame. Anyone who knows Iranians knows how magical they can be, how charming, how utterly engaging. Of course Ahmadinejad has all these traits. Wallace was just ignorant of Iran, in every way. That's the reason he was granted the interview, obviously. He was a dupe, and could easily be used.
Yes, Ahmadinejad has threatened the US, as well as the world. It is a religious mission he is on. We shall just have to wait and see what this big revelation will be. Jay Sekulow is all concerned about it. The Christian evangelicals are all ready for the apocalypse. We'll just have to wait and see. We know that Ahmadinejad is a liar. We know Islam brings an evil, vice-gripping spell on people. We know they mean murder. So really, what's there to wait for?
Muslims should relize that they are being herded to death by their own leaders, for no other cause than misery. It is not freedom they fight for, not peace, not prosperty or happiness. It is death alone they fight for. The die for the god of death. That is all. Ahmadinejad lied about the Jews. Muslims in Lebanon believed him. Hezbollah, Irans black hand in Palestine, has used the Lebanese. Lebanese have died. Muslims have died. It isn't Israel's fault. Ahmadinejad lied, Muslims died.
Is it a matter of degrees then, this religious differentiation?
President Bush has always insisted that Islam was a religion of peace, from the day after 9-11. He, and others, continually make room for "good" Muslims, and condemn the mass murderers among them as examples of extremism, and even last year Bush said this:
This form of radicalism [Islamofascism] exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.
President George W. Bush addresses his remarks on the War on Terror, Thursday,
Oct. 6, 2005, speaking before the National Endowment for Democracy at the Ronald
Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington. White House photo
by Eric Draper
Bush still prefers to think of Islam as a good religion that is being abused. August 10, 2006, he use the same term, "Islamofascists," to identify the culprits. They are not the true representatives of Islam, he believes.
So, at what point does Islam go bad? Are all Muslims liable to simply slip into murderous rage unless they are diligently on guard against extremism? What exactly is extremism?
American political jargon has delighted in the standard differentiations: radical, far right, right, moderate, left, far left, and radical again. Right, moderate, left. Where does extremism begin and end? Violence? When you are attacked violently, and fight back, are you therefore an extremist? If you refuse to employ violence at any time, are you also an extremist? What about the "idealist?" Is he an extremist? To deny someone else the freedom to destory you, your home, your government, your country, is that extremism?
Perhaps these political terms are all false and misleading. Perhaps they are so artificial that they no longer accurately identify the social realities they profess to. Perhaps they are hazardous to use now. Islam has infected the world, for the worse. Islamic mass murderers can hide behind any word now, any term, any media buzz word.
The confusion comes indeed from religion itself. In America, it comes from the politicization of Christianity. It developed in the halls of infidelity--the university, and particularly the theological seminaries. It was the war with science. If you actually believed what the Bible said, you were an anti-intellectual "fundamentalist," a term which became synomymous with "extremist." These terms almost simultaneously rose up in political jargon as well. Political jargon become a metaphor of religious conflict. If you believe what the Constitution said, you were, again, a "fundamentalist," or an "extremist." You were irrational, unreasonable, and in a state of historical lock-brain. You needed to become "moderate," not anti-Constitution, but simply moderate in interpretation. You needed social flux, iand re-assessment. After all, times obviously change. For the Bible, as for the country, circumstances evolve, and you simply can't apply the texts directly to the situation in front of you. It takes some interpretation. This is what Jewish literature is all about, re-applying the principles to new situations. There is midrash, the mishnah, the talmuds, the targum, and in a way, even Freud. American law is nothing but piles of 'progressive' interpretation of the Constitution. Naturally, over time, the tendency of tradition is to obscure the original meaning of the text.
But either you believe, or you don't. Is that what extremism really is? Take poison as an example. How much poison does ot take to kill you? A little? A lot? A "moderate" amount? Does it depend on your health, or the kind of poison? So, can you be a little dead, as opposed to a lot dead?
No, you're either dead, or alive. Is that extremism?
I think extremism has to do with, not what you believe, but how you treat other people. The extremist will seek to destroy others. That's all. The extremist has to be removed, or at least caged permanently. That is not extremism, but merely the protection therefrom.
I think Bush is generous, and "moderate" in his assessment of Islam. Personally, I think Islam is poison, and should be eliminated entirely. (That would be extremism, were I to have the power to execute my opinion.) I think Islam is an evil spell, but, I'm supersitious. I believe that demonic forces exist in the world. They are intelligent, and they cooperate with evil people. So, therefore, I'm out of the discussion--at least the political discussion. In the religious realm, though, I consider myself very rational, if that isn't oxymoronic, or hopelessly contradictory. Religion and politics are perhaps competing critical methodologies with respect to assessing human behavior, personal and social. I do take the religious view first, the the political.
I believe Islam is wrong, and that its effects are pernicious. I realize the same is believed about Christianity by many people. The Jews themselves have not escaped the accusation either. In a way, only the Buddhists are outside the realm of war. (However, where they are not persecuted, it is the result of a political power than has allowed them to practice their religion. Politics and war buy religious freedom. One is always free to believe, but not always without persecution. There is a big price for that freedom.)
Religion can elevate man. It can also degrade man. Yes, there are moments when I have wondered whether the Muslim mass murderes really have anything to do with Islam or not. But, the Qur'an gives them the go ahead, it seems to me. If they abuse Islam, then it's up to the rest of the Muslims to stop them, not a well-meaning president of a diffrerent country. This the Muslims have not done, at all. Therefore, the whole lot is suspect. It cannot be otherwise, logically. No sociological circumstances can assuage the verdict. If it is a question of bullying, as in Hezbollah forcing the Lebonese to harbor them, then the world needs to know about this, plainly, openly, and simply.
Either the Muslims of the world are unwilling to make this effort, thus bringing on themselves complete suspicion of complicity, or else the press has been unwilling to expose this hidden reality. In that case, the media is the real enemy. I doubt this is so. I think the Muslims are complicit. Mute is party.
The murderers don't live in a vacuum. The media often reports how their relatives are always so shocked that some brother or husband turned mass murderer. That's the only thing the media has reported. Well, somebody knew something. There are too many of these murderers. Look at Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Did no one have any idea of what they were doing during the last six years? Was there not a single Lebonese who was aware of the 13,000 rockets being positioned throughout the region?
They are liars, that's all. And we're supposed to be kind, tolerant, and "generous," and believe them? Talk about anti-intellectual. This is liberal "fundamentalism," to love a lie, or to love lying.
Whatever political manoeuvering transpires as a result of the foiled British terror plot, the fact is, our freedoms are slowly slipping away from us. "Inconvenience," they're calling it again. (Even Sean Hannity is using the word).
I say western security authorities are inconveniencing the wrong people!
Make the Muslims pay for this! Why should their presence, and their religion, be allowed to change the world--for the worse? Why should they be allowed to bannish freedom from the world? Allowing them free travel throughout the world is basically turned into an appeasement of Muslims murderers. Their religion is the antithesis of freedom. There are mass murderers among the Muslims. What is the point of allowing them a free hand? Yes, that's right, it is they who have the free hand. The west is gradually choking itself to death, with the hand of the Muslims.
The "romantic" Muslims. Perhaps it should
be a law that the women take off their robes
before they board airplanes. They all have
western clothes underneath, anyway.
Is it an unbearable awareness, to realize that Muslim people can be so evil? They often look so beautiful, so romantic, so mysterious. Why, it's just a shame that anyone could be so cruel as to resist them, so mean as to shun them. To call them names? Unthinkable! It's just unacceptable to think that the Muslims foster mass murderers. It's just not Christian to believe that human beings could be so bad.
It is the height of liberal self-righteousness to refrain from such unkind thoughts. Muslims are wonderful people, full of love, full of peace, full of good will for the world. (Where anyone gets this idea remains a profound mystery. It certainly doesn't come form the Qur'ran.)
Each murderous event, successful or prevented, only costs us a little more of our freedom. Now we can't take liquids on board an airplane. We can't take ointment, cream, shampoo, or worse, we can't take our beloved gadgets, all our little electronic toys.
For this, we can thank the Muslims. Every time we have to stop, take off our coats, our shoes, our belts, we can thank the Muslims. Every time we have to open our baggage, our bags, our briefcases, we can thank the Muslims. Everytime our personal privacy is invaded, publicly, we can thank the Muslims.
Don't we have so much to be thank the Muslims for? Can't we so grateful for their presence?
Security forces can congratulate themselves on their wondrous, superior technology and "intelligence." Politicians can manipulate the rhetoric of any circumstance, and turn it into political fodder. The media has endless opportunity to spin, spit, and spoil the spirit.
But all the while, we're losing our freedoms. Little by little, we come caged. In stead of seeing wild animals in the cage, the situation is reversing. The 'idiological' liberals have 'compassionately' loosed the poor ravenous animals, and it is now we who walked around in cages. The animals are free.
Well, maybe it isn't just politics, police states, and mass murderers. Maybe it's a combination of circumstances evolved through technology. The more intense and technological or personal identification becomes, the more unsafe it is, the more unsafe we are, and the more we lose freedom.
So, while we have the last remaining opportunities, lets practice "random acts of freedom," so we'll at least have the memory of what it was like. It doesn't look like the world is going to cage the murderous Muslims, or bannish Islam to the countries under its wicked spell. No, we're just going to watch the west die, slowly but surely. And really, we can't blame the Muslims. We did it to ourselves.
Our conscientious leaders (trusting that we still have such) are determined not to get sucked into tyranny. They refuse to act like the enemy. As a result, the enemy wins. In the name of equality, justice, and even "freedom," the enemy wins.
The religion of Islam continues to curse the world, bringing on more tyranny with each satanic plot. The western world is continually disrupted, and loses another dimension of peace and freedom, almost daily.
Well-armed police at British airports. Does this make anyone feel safer? Does this
insure or protect our freedoms? Of course not. It is a sign that they are vanishing.
British security foiled a Muslim murder plot to blow up several airplanes headed for the US, says the BBC. Liquid explosives were smuggled aboard in handbags on some 10 planes. New York, Washington, and California airports would have been the targets. The news is using that dastardly term "home grown" again, to describe the Muslim murderers. Yes, some of them were apparently born in England. But they are Pakastani. (I'm beginning to believe that the Pakastani Muslims are worse than the Arab Muslims.) They are not "English." They are foreigners, from a foriegn race, with a foreign language, a foreign religion, and above all, a foreign purpose. They are ENEMIES of England, America, and freedom in the world. The Islamic murderers curse mankind. That is their function. That is their purpose. That is their soul's desire.
The liquid explosives smuggled onto the planes in beverage containers, and other simple items, in handbags. Now Britain has banned all handbags and carry-ons from flights, along with numerous other simple items, such as all liquids, except medicine and baby formula verified as authentic; all electrical and battery-powered items, including laptop computers, mobile phones and iPods; electric key fobs, etc. Chalk up another great victory for the murderers. More freedoms vanished forever. More of our lives robbed from us. This is intolerable. Freedom is begin raped right in front of us! Can we do nothing?
Twenty-one of these willful demoniacs "were arrested in London, its suburbs and Birmingham following a lengthy investigation."
As these monsters defile every aspect of living, possession of property, freedom of movement, as they bring a curse upon the practical logistics of living, they don't even have to actually succeed in blowing anything up. The bastards are ruining the western world as is, just by their presence, their purpose, and their "threat."
I say ban Muslims, not handbags. Send them all back to their own countries, and put a travel ban on all Muslims. This is the only practical, safe method. Otherwise, we will still have the threat, and we will still lose more and more freedom, daily. This is what is happening before our eyes.
And no, I am not encouraged by the security success. I am discouraged that it will merely cost more freedom. Islam is inconveniencing the world, and Islam should be put in chains. Muslims should be imprisoned within their own countries. Banned and boycotted. They bread nothing but hate, hate for all the west has accomplished. They hate freedom, they hate equality, they hate humanity, and were the truth known, they hate the true God.
There is no compromising, there is no negotiation, and there is no dialogue. Away with them! Quickly! They are themselves, in their individuals persons, the source of the curse. They are willfully evil. They are nothing but wicked, murderers, who delight in destruction, and there presence should never, ever be tolerated for a moment.
I don't know how more strongly to express this emergency. Good Muslims? Let them be good in their own country. If they don't like it there, let them utterly denounce and defy Islam. Let them swear to war against Islam--but in their own country. (But the world could still never trust them in the free world.)
Passengers waiting outside the North Terminal at Britain's Gatwick Airport, are
given water by and airport workerThursday Aug. 10, 2006. Security at all UK
airports has been tightened after an alleged plot to blow up planes in mid-flight.
British Airways canceled all flights between Heathrow airport and points in
Britain, Europe and Libya Thursday because of severe congestion caused
by the tight new security measures. Heathrow _ which normally sees 1,250
departures and arrivals a day _ was closed to arriving European flights, and
airlines including Alitalia, Lufthansa, Iberia and Aer Lingus canceled flights to
Heathrow. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
If anyone should have freedom taken from them, it is the Muslims--and all who support them. The murderous Muslims in the free world should be put in prison camps, denied every freedom they despise, and then deported. The Muslims murderers in Guantanamo Bay are actually the most fortunate of all Muslims right now. Royalty treated, but denied the freedom to murder. That's all.
And look at the cost these hords of possessed misanthropes! Why should we pay such a price to keep them alive, keep them "free" from harm, and well fed?
Everyone thinks we're handling the situation just fine. Our "compassionate" legislators think they're being reasonable, rational, and even "fair" to the devil. How foolish they are. They are too cowardly to recognize that there is a devil at all! It seems too much for them It's too unkind, too nasty, too childish. Our western leaders are just too good to think such evil thoughts like there could be human beings so evil as willfuly demonic Muslims.
Look at the Muslims in Iraq! Slaughtering each other every day. Every day! I'm sick of it! Who cares? They have worn out the patience of the world. The only real beneficaries of all this are Putin (Russia) and Hu Jintao (China), permanent enemies of the America and the West. And of course, there are the Latin hotheads, like Casto and Chavez. Islam is a demonic cult, which easily brothers up to any envious enemy of the US. Islam is welcomed by any immature social entity that thinks hating America gives them status. The third world is a left-over sixties cess-pool, full of self-idolizing indulgents, without conscience, without resepct, and without good will. Only now they have benefited from Western technology, and have the power to create unprecedented havoc, so that their deformity has become a significant threat. They see a grand vision of the end of America and Western Europe.
Perhaps none of this can be solved, after all. Perhaps it will grow only worse--culminating in the Apocalypse. Well, do we sit by and watch it happen? Or, do we make an effort, our full effort, so that at least we go down fighting. At least it will never be said of us that we didn't care, or that we assented to the evil. Lovers of good and freedom have been through this before, actually. Many times in fact. I say it's better to fight to the last man.
It seems that Reuters photographers (and who knows what other professionals) are intentionally misrepresenting the war in southern Lebanon. They are doing their best to make Israel look monstrous and criminal. For this crime, Reuters should be sued in international court, like, the Hague. Fraud is fraud. False photography is libel, just like intentionally publishing false facts, designed to injure, is libel.
Tom Gross, in Aish.com, posted an article, "The Media aims its missiles"--at Israel. No, Reuters isn't the only culprit. There is the BBC propoganda campaign, and CNN's Nick Roberson admission that Hezbollah had controlled CNN cameras in the July 18 report about civilian casualites. Within Gross's article is a link to a post on Little Green Footballs (August 5, 2006), and some actual examples of photo-doctoring. It is maddening to see, and to know that such fraud is effectivly influencing 'world opinion' against Israel, and by association, America.
A doctored photo analyzed on LittleGreenFootballs. Notice the repeated smoke patterns.
LGF notes also the repetition of buildings. LGF says it is Photoshop software technique,
called "cloning."
Of course, there was that matter of a Lebonese rescue worker in a green helmet, having pictures taken of him and the same dead child, in many different locations. Very impressive.
But, doctoring photos for purposes of propaganda has been going on a long time. Life Magazine did back in the '60's. When the Communists were trying to take over Chicago, Life Magazine attacked the Chicago police, and featurerd photographs of police beating Negroes, thus attributing the riots to the city of Chicago--particularly to its law enforcement. (Everyone knows now, who didn't know then, that racial agitation is the Communist trademark in America.)
The cover picture wasn't so doctored, but the most dramatic picture in the inside story was a complete fake. It showed police who were not in Chicago politce uniforms, for starters. But it identified them as Chicago police. It was a created photograph, depicting supposedly Chicago police beating Negroes. The police were superimposed upon the picture of the rioters. I have seen the original photos, before and after the doctoring. I was speechless when they were shown to me.
Life Magazine's propaganized coverage of the Chicago riots of
1968, using fake photos.
The national Democratic Convention was held in Chicago that year, four months earlier. It was a riotous time. Communists were operating with great success, but little would America imagine that they media cooperated with them. The Left vs Right contest wasn't so clear to the American public then. The media was so preoccupied with burying Senator Joe McCarthy that the public held in oblivion regarding the actual communist operations on the street, and in the news room. The focus was on Communists in the government, and the media faithfull ridiculed that very idea. It has since been proven, of course, that not only was Joe McCarthy correct in his suspicions, but that the situation was much worse than he suscpected. The sixth chapter of Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism exposes the truth about all this, with the Verona records and other testimonies. There were over 300 Soviet agents working in the highest levels of the US government. McCarthy had suspected only 57 for sure.
However, this was in the '40's and '50's. By the '60's, the media had established McCathy's concerns about Communism as the delusional "Red Scare" episode in American social history. As a result, the very name Communism fell into disrepute, as though it was ignorant and naive even to use the term. Why, communism didn't exist at all. (What more successful cover could communists hope to have?)
So, along with the liberal media propaganda machine comes the matter of fake photography. This is a stark reality with which we all live now. Not just in the matter of UFO's, but in our daily news diet. Fakery abounds.
Sort of makes you wonder if the original wood cut illustrations of Vlad Tepes [tsepish] (Dracula) weren't some kind of propaganda. Maybe they were the first photo fakes.
Dracula, eating his victims. Perhaps the artist had a
deficient knowledge of human anatomy. How could the
impaled victims remain elevated on the stakes? and that's
a lot of meat for one devil!
This wood cut of Dracula is from a German pamphlet published by Matthias Hupnuff, in Strasbourg, 1500. Was it just hysterical German propaganda against her eastern neighbors in the Balkans? Dracula had kept the Muslims out of eastern Europe. The Germans should have been grateful. (But of late, all they seem to want to do is to convince the world that Germans are not racist. What a perilous position to be in!)
The world should be grateful that Israel is facing down Hezbollah. No one else has. Israel is the only man on the block. If Israel is a "Dracula," then the world needs more Draculas. Quickly!
Women, children, and the elderly, have been slaughtered in war for millenia. It is a common, ancient thing. Only in recent, "civilized" ages was it considered especially wrong. In the old days, women and children were often taken captive and enslaved, as well. That doesn't happen so much today, at least on the battlefield. It does happen on the black market.
In Nahariya, Israel on Wednesday, July 26, 2006. An Israeli elderly couple living
in an underground bomb shelter in the northern Israeli city of Nahariya, the site
of multiple rocket attacks by Hezbollah guerrillas. (Newsday / Moises Saman)
People who live in glass houses should not thrown stones. There are apparently
no bomb shelters in southern Lebanon. Israelis are certainly prepared to have
stones thrown at them. It is not their fault that Hezbollah abuses the Lebanese.
Today, women and children of the Muslim world have been trained to destroy themselves, and others. They are not always so innocent anymore. Yet, the enemy of all good knows that Western civilization today does not look kindly upon the slaughter of women and children. (Or, at least not on the slaughter of women. Free abortion begs the question about the slaughter of children. For that matter, scientists tell us know that abortion is definitely linked to breast cancer. It's a hormonal issue. So, the West is willing to torture women, if not slaughter them, or so it seems).
In even more egregious hypocrisy, the Muslims murderers decry the deaths of "innocents" in Lebanon, even as Hezbollah continues to use women and children as shields. This ploy they use to weaken the resolve of the West. This fraudulent lamentation they use to turn the the world against Israel. It seems to work, because most people abhor the slaughter of innocents. The problem is, it is Hezbollah that is doing the slaughtering! The world can't put two and two together. Otherwise, Islam would be universally outlawed as the most vicious, dangerous, and horriid cult every to curse mankind.
That's if the West truly values life, however. The West has seen a lot of slaughter too, historically. When the Europeans first came here, they experienced the slaughter of their women and children--by American Indians. The Jamestown Massacre comes to mind, when the Powhatan Indians brutally 347 Englishmen, men, women, and children, comprising nearly a quarter of Virginia's English population in 1622. (Of course, the Powhatans had given full waring, and apparently did not plan such a massacre. This would be certainly similar to the current situation in southern Lebanon. Israel has warned all. Yet, Hezbollah would have the slaughter.)
Of course, a few years later, in Connecticut, the English colonists massacred a Pequot village in Mystic. Some 500 women and children were shot or burned alive. That was called the Mysic Massacre, of Connecticut, in 1637.
There were numerous massacres in American Indian/ United States history, involving the slaughter of women and children.
More recently, in 1864, there was the Sand Creek Massacre, when 700 US soldiers and Colorado volunteers went out and slaughtered 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho women, children, and elderly. That was under Colonel John M. Chivington, former Methodist minister.
Of course, we mustn't leave out Wounded Knee, of 1890, when the US Army slaughter 150 Sioux were killed and 50 wounded. A good number of these were women and children and elderly.
Quanah Parker, leader of the last free Comanche
For that matter, sometimes animals get slaughtered. Remember how Col. Ranald Slidell MacKenzie was able to get the last of the Quahadi Comanche to surrender? He slaughtered some 1,400 of their horses out near Palo Duro Canyon, in the summer of 1874. The Comanche surrendered the next spring at Fort Sill, without a fight. They were starving.
Col. Ranald S. MacKenzie, slaughterer of horses.
In the old days, wars were fought to win. To win usually means to slaughter. That's what's so ugly about war. It is not a sport. Is is a desperate struggle to kill or be killed. When an opposing force is vulnerable, the aggresser must vanquish.
If there is no enemy left around, the defeat is more certain, lasting, and safe. The price is dreadful. And obviously, in the history of the world, slaughter is no guarantee. Hiroshima and Nagasaki teach that lesson, when some 214,000 Japanese "women and children" went up in smoke. Wars have continued, even after such a cataclysm. Sure, they were warned. The only redeeming factor in the Japanese story is that Japan has never proved a military threat again. However, they are a most formidable economic power in the world. There are those who say this was Japan's aim from the start, and that WWII was the usurpation of Japanese initiative by egotisical war lords, trying to re-live the Samuri days. Japans energies had been hi-jacked.
Whatever the case, slaughter is horrid, yet some part of humanity continues to indulge in it. It is a remarkable thing, that Israel continues to show restraint, sacrificing even those of its own citizenry, to avoid complete slaughter of the enemy in southern Lebanon--an enemy which slaughters women and children before the world.
On July 28, 2006, during his CNN television show, Glenn Beck talked briefly with RABBI YISROEL DOVID WEISS, spokesman for JEWS UNITED AGAINST ZIONISM (Neturei karta International). I thought it was a stunning interview, but it also left the giant, critical question open ended: Why can't the Jews have a state in their ancestral homeland? Glenn said what he had to say, naturally, but the Rabbi really didn't get to explain things.
Rabbi Weiss, like many orthodox Jews, doesn't believe there is supposed to be a "state of Israel" in the Middle East. The rabbi said that this is what has caused all the problems. Before 1948, Jews lived side by side with Muslims, not only in Palestine, but in many Muslim countries. It is true, I myself have heard it, from Mullahs, when I was in Iran. It isn't Jews they have a problem with. It is the "state of Israel."
Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, leader of Jewish anti-Zionism
Yet, no one explains why. Why can't Israel have a state? Who said they can't? Why?
Quoth the rabbi: ..."look at what God conveyed to us in the torah, in the Jewish teachings, where he told us that we should not transform Judaism from religion to a materialistic, nationalistic goal and also, that we are forbidden to attempt to exile by creating a state and there would be catastrophic results."
Words were fast, as they usually are in media bites, but, I do believe the rabbi is saying that the Bible says there's not supposed to be a state of Israel. ("Torah"--that would be the Old Testament.) I don't see that. It well may be that the orthodox writings say no, but, not the Bible. I'm sorry. It's not in there. This is an interpretation.
What I do see is this: there are scatterings of the Jewish people, there are oppressions, there are exiles of the Jews, from the homeland land of Cana'an (Palestine, Israel, Judah, or whatever name we want to use)--and from many other countries; there are also returns, restorations, and replantings. This, of course, is all in accordance with how Jews behave toward God, and the covenant. If they scoff at it all, they're in trouble. If they obey, all the power in hell cannot defeat them. That's certainly in the Torah (as in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, 29, etc.)
I also see this: there has never been a return, a restoration, or a replanting, in Israel, that God was not behind. That is the fact., at least in terms of the Torah, or the entire Old Testment. There was never a returning to the homeland, the Promised Land, that God did not bring about.
The complete and utter chicanery of the "Palestinian" fantasy and political cause is not to be configured as an element Providence--other than the inevitable resistance to the will of God, which humanity never fails to offer up.
Are Rabbi Weiss's orthodoxim being a bit pharisaical here? Do they believe they are more righteous than, say, the purportedly "secular" Jews who created the modern state of Israel? There are an awfully lot of orthodoxim and Hasidim in Israel, who live off the charity of the state of Israel. The people support them, and are pleased to have them, because the orthodoxim are the keepers of the flame, so to speak. They preserve the traditions.
But what traditions? The commandments of men? How much of the Torah is actually applicable these days? What percentage? What is the TAC (torah applicability quotient)? Do the Jews know what tribe they each are from? Isaacar? Judah? Nephtali? Ephraim? Are they living on the part of the land originally alloted to their tribe, where they're supposed to be? Do they tithe their produce? Do they even farm?
Anti-Zionist Jews, such as Rabbi Weiss, do not get coverage
by the mainstream media, despite their frequent protests,
speeches, and burning of Israeli flags.
I don't know about these rabbis. I really don't. I think they are a significant social phenomenon. They have a place, but it is not a place designated by the Torah. They are not Levites. They are not priests. They are academics. They are very much like the pharisees of the post-Exilic intertestament period--who had created their own place in society. (Look at the New Testament, if there is any doubt at what authority they held in Jewish society.) The Hasidim of today have earned the respect of their people through their adherence to Jewish tradition. The people vicariously value the traditions through these professional traditionalists. They are the representatives of the faith, or so they function as. They are cultural "priests," in that sense.
But their place is not of divine appointment. That's what I would say to Rabbi Weiss. By whose authority does he say these things about the state of Israel?
Now, there is the matter of the Temple. There is no temple now, not since 70 AD, when Titus destroyed it. There is no "sacrifice." No burnt offerings. This will not be restored until the messiah comes, according to the orthodoxim. In the mean time, there is to be no state of Israel, they say.
So this presents a real logistical problem for academics. Rabbi Weiss would agree then with the drunken rage of Mel Gibson, "Jews cause all the wars in the world." Right? The orthodoxim are then a superficial bunch, who bite the hand that feeds them? The so-called "secular" Jew is more powerful than the "obedient," "religious" Jew? The secular Jew leads all the Jews? So then how can the orthdoxim claim to be the "authority?" What kind of authority is that? In the secular mind, it's "We'll refer to you when it suits us." "Don't call us, we'll call you." The orthodoxim are merely tokens of the tradition, and function only in that capacity?
I see three power players, then: the secular Jews, the orthodoxim, and the Torah itself. These three are distinct in my mind. Meanwhile, I don't see the divine command forbidding the state of Israel. I don't see the response of the Muslim world, particularly the falsity of the "Palestinian" issue, as any indication of Providence as to His will regarding the state of Israel. I don't see Israel as central organization for a Jewish international world swindle, or a haven for convicted scoundrels, or a university for budding crooks. (Mein Kampf, P. 325). And I don't see Israel as an oppressive power. (If it weren't for the Jews, most the so-called "Palestinians" wouldn't even be eating. The Arabs, Jordanians, Syrians, and Iranians give them only guns, not food. Israel gives a lot of them jobs!)
Does Israel have a right to exist? Whence cometh such a peculiar question? Why is it asked only of the Jews? (Well, I admit, it is often asked of the Indian nations these days.) The United Nations granted the charter for Israel. Now Kofi Annan wants everyone to think Israel indeed "causes all the wars in the world." My, what a change in the UN. I think there is no such question. It belies profound racism and hatred. The world is at fault here. Not the Jews. Any time you ask, Does this or that people have a "right" to exist, you show your prejudice, if not your blasphemy.
Perhaps "Does this people have a right to exist here?" is a different question.
People still aren't getting it. Mel Gibson is being made into a saint! Jewish leaders are displaying fabulous spiritual decor. What more could be asked of anyone?
And it couldn't have happened at a better time. The world's attention is on Israel, because of the murderous Muslims, and Israel's resistance. People are wondering about the Jews again. The fundamentally anti-Semitic world is feeling bad about Jews again. "Jews cause all the wars in the world!" It is a primal chorus of the human race.
Mel Gibson, maker of the most successful Christ movie in history, makes a nasty comment that speaks for the world. Mel was a like a high priest of the lower nature. He said what everyone thinks--at least now and then.
Mel Gibson, in a new 'real to real' movie about Christ?
The Jews can't let this pass. This is an opportunity to discover, not only in the legal sense of "discovery," but in the spiritual sense of, Why in the world do people hate Jews? Mel is willing to cooperate, in behalf of all people.
Mel gets to be crucified by the Jews--the ultra act, the 'uber' role; but the Jews get to handle this one differently. Sure, Mel is being held to the bar of high justice, the highest of all. But the Jews are showing nothing but compassion, understanding, patience, and above all, forgiveness.
The Jews have the advantage. The leaders, like ADL's Abe Foxman, get to be persecuted, and also get to forgive. They get the upper hand, the moral high ground. To err is human, that's Mel (and the rest of us); to forgive, that's divine. The Jews get the divine role in this one. It's good for every Jew, (though some don't see it. Some react superficially.)
But in the process, they're canonizing Mel Gibson. Mel is gently, effectively sacrificed for the good of the world. Mel gets to play Christ. How fitting. The Catholic gets to act out the stations of the cross. And how carefully, how tenderly the Jews lead him to his sacrifice, and at the same time proffer him his salvation! (He's being invited to all the great 'temples' of anti-Semitism, to see the result of such sentiment.) Oh, the Jewish leaders are literally burying Gibson in guilt. But, it's all for the saving of his soul. The Jews are acting out the role of God! Gibson is the repentant sinner, led to Christ, by the Jews.
This is truly a remarkable story. Who could have scripted it? It couldn't be more timely, more apropos, and more effective. It is a win-win situation for all the players.
Come on, folks, this is Hollywood! This is the best of the best. Maybe Gibson was provoked to say what he said. Maybe it was a set-up. Does an intoxicated driver normally make an outburst of anti-Semitism when stopped? Are the Jews the object of contumely and anathema whenever someone is frustrated over anything? Are the Jews behind everything that happens in the world, to anyone, at any time?
But who cares? Look at this movie in the making! Mel Gibson is behaving like a humble saint, prostrating himself before the all-knowing inquisition of the Jews. Mel Gibson is being canonized. The Jewish leaders are literally parading their compassion and forgiveness!
Look at this in the light of Lebanon. Look at this in the demonic darkness of Islam. They hate Jews, and no one cares. They want to remove Jews from the face of the earth. No one protests, really. These mechanics have not been rebuked for their violent, destructive, lethal satanism. But Mel Gibson expresses a mere word of resentment toward Jews, and the Jewish community rushes to forgive! This is incredible.
I think everyone is showing his very best. Makes me proud to be an American, really. Only in America can such a profusion of spirituality happen. Only in America can such refulgence of righteousness overshadow all culture. Only in America can spiritual things trump even the most materialistic, hedonist society.
This script is virtually Providential. The Jews really needed it. And apparently Mel Gibson did to. We all needed it.
Mel Gibson isn't anti-Semitic, at least no more than anyone else, including some Jews.
Though he's being studiously conducted down his own Via della Rosa, Mel Gibson is really quite fine. Yes, he's Catholic, and all that, but right now the needs of his soul are being tended to by the Jews. His spiritual heart is being surgically dissected and most carefully analyzed not by the priests, but by the Jews. Jewish leaders seem to be luxuriating in their own spiritual knowledge here, and displaying their expertise as never before. This is a case where a famous man is willing to play ball with them, so to speak. Gibson has been apologetic, if not docile, from the day after the incident, or the day he sobered up. The Jewish leaders are delighted to delve into such a famed man, at such a time, for such a cause.
Mel Gibson, on trial for us all, a unque
sort of "Christ" role, in the hands of
benevolent Jews this time, indeed.
He was arrested for drunk driving, and is now accused of making sexually vulgar and outrageous anti-Semitic remarks, to a Jewish police officer and assisting female officer. (The arrest was for drunk driving, and no one has filed any charges for lewd or bigoted remarks. Police hear that constantly.) "Jews cause all the wars in the world," Gibson reportedly said. Of course, no one wants to be stopped by a police officer, and when you're intoxicated, it's not a good situation to be in, at all. But, we find no evidence that Jews or Israel, or anything Semitic was on Gibson's mind during the previous day or evening at the party. No such subject is reported by anyone. He was in a wonderful, grand mood, congenial to everyone. Why the sudden anti-Jewish remark?
Since the officer was Jewish, one could wonder if it wasn't some kind of incidental set up. The officer's name was James Mee. Doesn't sound Jewish to me. What did he say to Gibson to make the subject "Jewish?" Why did Gibson ask him if he was Jewish? Or, was the Jewish subject just something Gibson happened to be thinking about while speeding down the highway? Was it the news on the radio, about the Middle East? Still doesn't make sense. How did the Jews become a subject during an arrest? Are there a lot of Jewish cops in Malibu?
In any event, Gibson feels terrible about the PR damage, certainly. When one makes a movie like The Passion, then is found to be fallen so far out of character with the nature and significance of such a subject, one is inevitably drowninig in shame and guilt. Add to that the intense world chastisement, and you have an experience that only a really tough man can get through.
But the Jews aren't really making it tough on him at all. The whole "inquisition" they are putting him through is a display of their moral sensitivity and their desire that the world come to appreciate the spiritual refinement of at least four thousand years of cultural development. It's for them, just as much as it is for Gibson. In a way, any person should be thrilled to be put through such a ringer! The Jews mean him no harm at all. This is just as much good PR for them as it is a trial for Mel. And, as I said, Mel Gibson is a beneficiary, not a victim. The lessons the Jews are bringing out are for everyone, not just Gibson.
Mel Gibson isn't any more anti-Semitic than anyone else. The Jews in history, the Jews who are so few in the world, have shaped the world as no other people. Jews in the world create such significance, their story and presence are so profound, so vital, so "center stage" in world events, in short, the Jews are so psychologically powerful in world sociology that the normal mind reacts with fear and yes, aversion. This is the way it is. This is also the way the Torah says it is supposed to be. (Check out Ex. 15:16; 23:27; Deut. 2:25; 11:25. I've quoted these texts many times, but most people still don't seem to get it. The Lord placed fear of the Jews upon all other peoples of the world.) The way one relates to the Jews is telling. One's attitude reveals one's assessment of spiritual things, one's regard for God in heaven, and one's own sense of eternity.
Everyone is anti-Semitic. We're all liable to express it, now and then, one way or another, drunk or sober. It is our nature as non-Jews. (And, as I said, even some Jews have a problem with being Jewish, or with Jews.) And who knows what the tone of Gibson's voice was when he said it? Was he all that serious? Was he repeating sentiments of his father, which will ever lie latent in is mind, or any other son's mind who as grown up under it? Anti-Semitism is a phenomenon. We are obliged to deal with it. God has placed it before us. It is our duty to respond. It is no doubt for our salvation, to some unknown but probably vital extent.
Mel Gibson is in good hands, indeed. It doesn't matter what James Mee said or isn't saying. The point is, Gibson is going through a process that probably everyone needs to go through. He's Catholic, and like many Catholics, he may be a little corroded on that confession bit. Maybe he needs a fresh take, and the Jews are giving him just that. They've invited him to speak at Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the Jewish year. Wonderful! What an opportunity. The Jews love him. They are opening their hearts to him, and to the world. That's really what's happening.
No, no one cares about the hopeless anti-Semitics in the Muslim world. No one questions why they hate Jews. No one is anxious to peer into their black souls. They are abject, apparently. But Gibson is a white, American Christian, famous for a remarkable movie about Jesus. He has a problem with Jews? We must examine this!
So be it. Let the conscience flow. Let everyone open up inside, and examine his own soul. What say ye of the Jews? I'm not being theological about this. I'm just being psychologically practical and down to earth. The Lord has made them integral to the world. "Jews cause all the wars in the world" is just a frustrated, fearful way of confessing that. That's the truth in the wine. That's the real feeling. There is still the hand of God in the Jews. We all still feel that fear, that aversion. That's what we should all confess.
If the Jewish leaders are truly wise, their premise should be the Torah, not the Midrash, not Freud, and least of all the media.
If they didn't, that's what they implied.
The wondrous "Palestinians" have insulted United States Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on two counts, her race and her gender. Not that we would expect less from Arab Muslims, the first to enslave and market Africans, and the last to respect women on earth, but, the darlings of the Arab Muslims world--the so-called "Palestinians" are such publicity hounds, one might have thought they would be more careful. But, no. They are the low-down racists they've always been.
This isn't just media hype, either. There is an article about this matter in the Jerusalem Post, "Palestinian anti-Rice feeling peaks with monkey cartoon," published today, August 1, 2006. Rice is being called "the black raven," and "child murderer," feeding on the carcasses of dead "Palestinians." (Of course, the article failes to point out that the "Palestinians" murder their own children! Their own government feeds on the little cadavers, in terms of publicity.)
"This week a cartoon in the PA-funded Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda mocked Rice's hope
for the birth of a new Middle East by drawing her pregnant with a monkey. The
paper has also published pictures of demonstrators with posters of Rice drinking
blood dripping from dead babies and saying: 'I need more blood.'"
The JP article says further, According to Palestinian Media Watch, the Palestinians "seem to have a special penchant for hating Rice. Some of the attacks have included expressions of racial hatred, as in an article this week referring to Rice as a raven and a previous article that referred to her as 'the colored,' 'the dark skinned' and 'the black lady.'"
A cartoon in the PA-funded Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda mocks Rice's
hope for the birth of a new Middle East. Photo: Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda
Indeed, it get's worse. There is, of course, "the black widow," and a variety of vicious insinuations about the Secretary's single status.
Interestingly, this has been going on for some time. There is a post on