Word is getting out (via Glenn Beck) that London has initiated a program of social improvement which ultimately allows the government to literally 'take out' any person or family found guilty of "anti-social behavior." BadEagle.com is researching the matter presently. Beck today (Monday, April 30, 2007) that London has already administered 'social justice' on some 9,000 familes. We have not found such a statistic yet, and furthermore, there is precious little on the internet at all. Beck presents the plan as a horrid NAZI flashback, but, the program that is on the internet appears quite differently. It's called "Respect: Give Respect, Get Respect." We note that the program for improving social behavior is designed by the Labour Party. It is a political campaign.
According to Beck, the government can simply arrest you, your family, or all guilty parties, and remove you from your domecile, and relocate you in what Beck calls "respect camps." The powers invested are extensive. Property causing social offense, such as loud, noise-making devises of any kind, can be seized by the police. Cars, motorcycles, power tools, and even alcohol itself can be seized. It is an all-encompassing social improvement program.
The Anti-Social Behavior Order can be issued to anyone over 10 years of age. The ASBO is deadly, so it behooves everyone to know the law. Why, a Respect Handbook is provided by the government.
Before we indulge our fears abjectly, we should ask a few appropriate questions. This appears to be a community-based program for law inforcement. In other words, the police simply can't handle all the misbehavior. The people have to take an initiative. Now, greater London according to the 2001 census, had well over half a million Muslims. (Today, it's no doubt closer to three-quarters, if not a million or over.) One wonders if the ASBO campaign applies to Muslim terrorist, fomenting anti-London, anti-England, anti-Western, anti-Christian hatred on a daily basis. One wonders who has the right to be offended, and who doesn't? One wonders who determines what is to be considered offensive and what isn't.
The infection of shiria law (Muslim customs) is already deep in America, as well as in other Western countries. The Muslims have demanded everything from prayer mats in the airports to foot-washing basins for cabbies working at the airports. Is such an intrusion of foreigners and foreign religion possibly offensive? The University of Oklahoma just honored the would-be murder bomber, Joel Hinrichs, with a stone memorial plaque in the patio before the Student Union. Could not the accompanying anti-American blessing of OU's president David Boren beconsidered offensive and anti-social? Many people think so. In Amsterdam (Netherlands), nine and ten-year-old Muslim school children began demolishing a classroom when the teacher, in the process of talking about rural farm life, spoke of pigs. The children, according to the Amsterdam news article, appear very much like Palestinian children--undisciplined, wallowing in welfare and the ills of poverty. The outrage against such state supported nonsense in the Netherlands is being voiced by the Labor Party there.
On the point of England's Labour Party, and the Netherlands Labour Party, we must observe that the reaction to the liberal chaos is generated in the 'conservative' parties. However, in America's view of Europe, the labour parties have always been associated with socialist, Communist parties. For the people, as in the American "Democrat Party" version. There is great confusion in the trans-continental communication.
The instincts of nationalism and preservation of culture are in America associated with conservative movements, while the multicultural aggressions are associated with liberalism--which in America is associated historically with Communism. The confusion is caused by the two-faced, hypcritical fronts put on my Communism. In it's attempts to change the 'status quo,' (something created by conservatives and patriots and capitalist accomplishments of civilization), Communists will agitate discontent based on religion, race, or economic issues. Until everyone has a Cadillac, Communists say there is oppression. Until a Muslim is President of the United States, Communists will say there is religious oppression in America.
But Communism cares nothing for religion, race, or freedom. This is a facade.
So, it appears that the Labour Parites of Europe are actually more similar to American conservative movements. It could be that Glenn Beck is reading this London matter wrongly. Then again, the NAZI party of Germany came on gradually, with grand schemes of uptlifting, sanitizing social development, preserving the culture, etc.
It is difficult to assess these various political issues when the political language is ambiguous. Some of this may be historically inevitable, but I believe much of the confusion is intentional and deceptive. Tyranny is the natural goal of humanity. It is something that must always be guarded against. However, when one allows anti-cultural elements at home, like aggressive Muslims who hate the West and do everything to try to change it, the reaction--by the time it becomes effective--is toward the other end of the spectrum: also tyranny.
America had this all figured out at one time, or so it seems, looking back. However, with the influx of anti-American multi-culturalism, America's nationalists and patriots stand liable to overreact with a vengeance. These are times that try men's souls, indeed. We want freedom, but will that require oppressive measures? Or even the illusion of oppression? Iran has banned Western hair styles. We call that tyranny. If the West bans Islam, and all it's "styles," is that to be called tyranny?
This quarter's Spring 2007 issue of Persian Heritage Magazine is one of the most amazing magazine issues in the history of any modern American popular literature. The magazine, created by Dr. Shahrokh Ahkami (who delivers babies for a living), has always offered a unique venue since its beginning in 1996. Published in Passaic, New Jersey, Persian Heritage is by and for American Iranians; but, since American Iranians are all about America, the magazine is of interest to all Americans, and presents a truly worthy model for all 'transplanted' American communities of today.
I became part of the magazine in 1998, when I was teaching at Oklahoma State University, (OKC campus). I was looking for a place to publish a collection of epics I had written for Her Imperial Majesty, Farah Diba Pahlavi. I had written them more than ten years earlier, but had never published them. I was introduced to Dr. Ahkami by a Persian friend, Farhad Sephabody, former Iranian ambassador to Morocco. Happily, all seven epics, Jahan-dideh, were published in Persian Heritage, in due time. I've also published other poetry and fiction in the magazine, as well as scholarly research on ancient Persian/Jewish relations, religion, and opinion/editorial.
In 1998, I travelled to Iran on a lecture tour arranged by Persian Heritage. I spoke about American culture at the University of Tehran, and in the far eastern part of the country, at the Ferdowsi University in Masshad. Several installments of this tour were published in Persian Heritage as a travelogue and cultural commentary.
This issue, I published an exlusive interview with Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, writer and producer of the TV docu-drama, "The Path to 9-11." (This is the film that revealed the ineptitude and error of the Clinton Administration.) I had met the kind Mr. Nowrasteh at a David Horowitz convention earlier. Of course, my first exclusive interview with Mr. Nowrasteh was about his impressions of American Indians, published here on BadEagle.com. When Dr. Ahkami heard about that, he immediately wanted an interview about "9-11." Mr. Nowrasteh was kind enough to grant me the privilege. Mr. Nowrasteh is something for Iranians to really be proud of, and particularly American Iranians.
Shardad Rohani, the famous classical music conductor and composer, was also featured in this Spring issue of Persian Heritage. (In fact, his picture is on the cover of the Persian side of the magazine, and Mr. Nowrasteh is on the English side.) He has been a guest conductor of major symphonies throughout the world, most recently the London Philharmonic. He entered the Vienna Music Academy in 1975. Maestro Rohani recently recorded an entire album of his compositions, with the London Philharmonic. The music was oriented to the poetry of Rumi and Ahmad Shamlou. It is selling in Iran, and will soon be distributed world-wide.
Shardad Rohani, with the Los Angeles
The magazine is full of world news, local news, and a very high level of comprehension and commentary. It included politics, religion, culture, arts, literature, science, and history. One of my artistic contributions to the outlay was the idea of a fashion section. I proposed fashion photography criticism, as a new genre of art in itself. I had proposed a premier feature of the work of Iranian photographer, Firooz Zahedi, whose work was featured in the May 2000 issue of Town & Country. I wrote Pamela Fiori directly. Unfortunately, I was not able to procure exact permission to use his photography in print, though having requested it in numerous ways. Fashion photography beset with obscure and mysterious rights and privileges. In any event, I have not given up on the original idea of fashion photography criticism.
Today is a time of great crisis for Iran as a nation. Persian Heritage this issue contains a stunning call to reflection by Adam Javid. He feels that Iran is under the threat of the worst disaster since the Mogolian invasion of the 13th century. He feels that, should the United States undertake an aerial bombardment of Iran, "the central government will fall and every ethnic group will take their own pound of flesh. The ensuing statelets will be busy squabbling and fighting for generations to come and that's excatly what the US desires."
I don't know about that last thought, but I am most curious about the proposed effects, and the concern that ethnic groups will rise to the surface, and the 'illusion' of the nation of Iran will dissolve. I hardly think that is true. A common language, a common culture, a common religion (Zoorasterianism) have held the nation together through centuries, yea, millenia, of foreign conquests, cultures, and settlements. I doubt that Iran will ever be anything other than fundamentally Persian.
I'm actually on the editorial board of the magazine, but I have not written on the most recent Iranian political affairs. I know American Iranians are deeply torn inside over the situation in Iran. Of course they do not approve of the present government in Tehran, but, then, who approves of their own government these days? The people in Iran had a revolution not so long ago (1979). Everyone one of them will tell you it was a disaster. They are very unhappy with the results. However, it is also true that most of the people are in no mood for another revolution. Thus, they tolorate a great deal of political baffoonery. They just go on about their individual lives. They have no desire whatsoever for a military encounter with the United States. They love America. That's the truth. I've been there. I know. Even out in the villages of eastern Iran.
Black Hank Sanders wants Alabama to apologize for slavery. This is wrong. Blacks should be grateful for being in America. Sanders should write up an official statement of thanksgiving.
Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, left, along with Sen. Vivian Figures, D-Mobile, right,
debates in favor of a resolution apologizing for slavery in Alabama, Thursday,
April 12, 2007, at the Statehouse in Montgomery, Ala. A vote on the apology will
have to wait until the Legislature returns from spring break. AP Photo/Rob Carr
Sanders has sponsered a bill by which the state of Alabama will make an official "apology" for the former slavery days. He's got both the House and the Senate behind it, evincing a liberal white state government there in the midst of Dixie. The resolution was passed the day after Confederate Memorial Day (Monday, April 23), which is an official state holiday.
Apology for slavery. What an utterly irrelevant thought. Blacks should be grateful they are here in America, with the right to vote, and to elect black senators who drum up their complaints on paper in the senate. The average African today doesn't even conceive of such luxuries.
Apology? If such a phenomenon is to be considered rational, Sanders should seek an apology from Africa, from the black people who first sold weaker black tribes to the Arab Muslims. The late 9th century Arab enslavement of African Negroes was the prelude to the later European slave trade. Britian had 10,000 African slaves working on Jamaican sugar plantations by 1675, an enterprise made possible by the Arab Muslims precedent. (Incidently, how any Negro in the world can look at Islam with favor, let alone actually become a Muslim, is one of the world's cultural mysteries. I suppose it might appear comparable to the American Indian response to Christianity, but that is a bit superficial at best.)
Obviously, not all blacks agree with Sanders. Radio show host Kyle Betton, host of the Kyle2K show (K-TALK AM630, Utah) certainly has an opposing view. He is often heard expressing not only his gratitude for living in America, but also his condemnation for not only the African tribes that betrayed weaker tribes, but for the attitude of Hank Sanders, that would perpetuate a sense of pity and helplessness in American black people. Keith Richberg, in a different way, expresses the same gratitude for America. In Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa (1997), Richberg decries the conditions of Africa. As a Washington Post reporter on a three-year assignment in Africa, has nothing positive to say about the people fo the continent. Of Africa, he says "I want no part of it" (p.247).
The Hank Sanders harrange again makes official that pathetic disposition of weakness, that crippling, slavish mind set of "you owe me." As long as there are liberal whites craving power they didn't create, manoeuvering for power they intend to usurp from conservatives, people like Sanders will be given attention and voice. As long as there are people like Sanders who are willing to be used by white liberals, the psychological slavery of blacks is assured.
Yes, there are a number of black "conservatives" who regularly post articles and opinions encouraging self-respect and self-reliance among black people. Writer like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Ken Hamblin, Walter Williams, etc., however, don't really have much effect on black people in general. It would in fact be hard to measure. They have their place in upper middle class society, but, apparently most black people don't. What black "liberals" want is guaranteed success for blacks. That is the crippler. Life isn't that way, for anyone. Conservative blacks can only encourage self-reliance. Character cannot be legislated.
But Hank wants to legislate attitude, and that's the foundation of character, is it not? Government control over thoughts and feelings, dictating to the heart, that is the essence of tyranny. That is the core of Communism. Of course, many political postures evolved out of the circumstancial opportunities grabbed by career politicians. They really are not informed about the nature of what they're doing, nor do they have any accurate historical perspective. They are just going with the flow, to their personal advantage. What else could it be, when a black senator from Selma, Alabama wants to cash in, emotionally (and politically), on a dark, mysterious past in American history--much of which is not documented, and professionally dramatized beyond rationality? (Furthermore, it is in fact documented that the slavery conditions for the Irish and Scots were much worse, since they were not private property, but state property. Yet, we've never heard the Scots or the Irish demand an apology.)
Sanders promotes a stultifying racism, in spite of his proposed intents. In all the distortions of slavist black leaders, there is inevitably suggested the thought that they don't accept themselves. They don't accept being black. They are angry about being black. Can this be? Is there an unspoken personal discontent here, for which they blame the United States? Is that how deep and low the anger is--that it would find a focus on a nation? It's almost as if this is some escape route. To identify the largest, greatest entity as the cause of your deepest personal problems is really a rather simple psychological formula. You find significance and validation, in your misery, by blaming the grandest tiger in the forest. That feels balanced. That seems equitable. It has to be true.
So, one is also free to blame God. One can blame the Creator. Of course, that would be a bit embarrassing. When and if a person's discontent arrives at that magnitude, he often will simply say he doesn't believe in God, at all. Thus, he is relieved, he thinks, of the burden of anger. But instead, his discontent is only misplaced, or, placed elsewhere.
But, enough psychological theory. The simple observation to be made here is that slavery is not something for anyone to blame anyone for. That is a fundamental misconception. "Historical justice" is a fantasy, really, and insults both war and religion. If complaining trumphs war, then we're in trouble! If lamentation has more authority than morality, then we might as well throw in the towel.
Ah, but people get paid for crying. HIred mourners. That's what liberalism is all about these days. Cultural gypsies they are, these professional whiners. Paid to plead poverty at your doorstep, to tug at your heart strings, while they're around back stealing your chickens.
Matt Damon's triology of Jason Bourne movies is an interesting intentity fest. It's not just about playing games with memory in an individual person. It is an expression of modern culture's fascination with evasion. It's not really about not knowing who you are, but about being a victim of memory loss, therefore about being innocent, unjustly treated, and surviving, triumphantly, by skills of manipulation, law evasion, and the lethal modes combined.
Matt Damon, in The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Movies about memory loss have been popular since the Freud's early 20th century theory of the unconscious became known. (Indeed, cinema and literature helped it become known, and popular.) There was Edward G. Robinson's The Stranger (1946), then The Red House (1947); Alan Ladd's Shane (1953); and Elizabeth Taylor's Suddenly Last Summer (1959), to name only a few of the vast repertoire of narcissistic indulgences.
In those days, memory loss in an individual, and the personal experience, was the point of the drama. In today's version of memory plays, the sociological context seems the greater emphasis. Memory loss, or memory affectation happens in a culture in which actual identity theft has become a grand custom. Mexicans live by it. Illegal Muslims live by it. Computers have allowed personal, private information to be available for the nearest competent hacker. Professional careless added to the mix, and hundreds of thousands of social security numbers have been misplaced, lost, or made public.
Elizabeth Taylor, in Suddenly Last Summer (1959)
Who is who? As a group of people, American Indians struggle more than any others to preserve our identity. Our "citizenship" is not open to anyone who happens to want it. Our identity is beseiged from all sides, for syndicated casino opportunities, for racial escapism on the part of those who wish to be something other than what they are, for political validation, and a host of other offenses. American Indians alone must prove, legally, who we are as an ethnicity. This is magnificent, actually. It is as if to say our identity alone is worth proving. That's why so many non-Indians crave it, particularly blacks and hispanics.
Rudy "Youngblood" is an identity thief, until he can demonstrate otherwise. There are two individuals who support Rudy, and use my names in their attempts to usurp my internet traffic: DavidYeagley.org and BadEagle.org. These perps are identity thieves, as low and criminal as any other. Blogspot.com, Technorati.com, both owned by Google.com, are co-conspirators to date. Identity manipulation, if not theft, is a major part of modern culture. The international underworld is adroit in the manoeuver. African, Russian, and Asian professionals practice internet fraud and manipulation daily, world-wide.
So why it is such a craze? Money is only part of the answer. It is a vice. That's is the hidden force. It's more than just avarice. It is a psychological compulsion, once indulged in and developed. It is a way of life.
In the Bourne movies, however, the memory element functions as a moral insulator. Jason Bourne is not responsible for his condition. He starts out therefore as a victim. He is a victim of other men, not of fate, ill-health, battle, or disease. A victim of men, that's the worst kind of victim. So the viewer is in total sympathy with him from the start. All his breaches of the law, all his violence, his deceptions--all is justified, because he has been cruelly wronged, and has every right to regain his true self. It's the battle for his true identity as a person.
That this is so popular a theme can only mean two things: 1) people in general don't feel they are who they really are, that life has made them something that's not really them; 2) it is a particularly delightful fantasy to be someone or something you are not. (This latter truth may be involved in the homosexual personality, and the matter of gender leap.) There is obviously some profound attraction to the phenomenon of identity diffusion or confusion. There is something strangely exciting about it.
In a way, all these issues seem inherent in the Christ story. This is the galactic identity story. How in the world to we even conceive of the identity of Jesus? What is divine? What is humane? How can they both exist in the same person? This is the subject of an early work of mine, done at Yale Divinity (1979). I called it "The Virgin Birth." That was the only technical evidence that the being himself was of divine origin. Yet, this truth was hidden in the heart of Mary (Luke 2:19), and formed no part of serious Christian doctrine until long after Christ was ascended to Heaven.
The human mind is obviously spell-bound at the subject of identity. Human, personal identity. It's part of the joy of having a child. It's part of the romance between a man and a woman. It's part of truth. In a philosophical way, the assertion of one thing always implies it's opposite. Perhaps identity confusion, or manipulation, is a natural part of reality. (In that case, how could anyone have a problem witht the divinity of Jesus?) In the natural world, there is something called camouflage. It exists from the insect to the mammalian world. Creatures naturally appear to be something other than what they are. Sometimes it's for protection, sometimes it's for capturing prey.
The peculiar phenomenon of birth and growth is perhaps the most interesting aspect of identity. A thing grows into something else. Identity is in a flux. It is never complete. Change is the templet. The Judeo-Christian idea that an individual person is morally responsible then appears to be one of the most incredible, unnatural (divine?) thoughts ever to occur in the mind of man. Free will, we call it. Choice. In some dimension, a very real dimension, our eternal destiny is determined by our own choice. So, wherever our true identity is, whoever we really are, it doesn't matter. If we have half a liking for living, it behooves us to make moral decisions. That is something we do within ourselves. No one can do that for us. No one can usurp that act, either. That alone is ours. We can know in our own hearts the decisions we have made. How they pan out in social reality is a different matter. The inner sanctum of the soul is inviolate. "The sanctity of the heart," Nathaniel Hawthorne called it, it is untouchable.
Indeed, we each need to recover the throne within. It is the gift of God. The imago Dei. The distinct and inimitable creation of the Almighty. That is our identity.
Ilana Mercer recently published an article on WorldNetDaily entitled, "Evil, not Ill." Her position on Cho Seung-Hui, the student who murdered over 30 students at Virginia Tech, is that Cho was simply evil, not mentally ill. Mercer indicts the social system that allowed Cho to develop into the monster he was, but ultimately leaves the blame for the mass murder on the mass murderer. In other words, the laws of the society, including those of law inforcement and the medial profession, allow if not encourage the kind of behavior manifested by Cho Seung-Hui. It's not a case of someone slipping through the cracks, but someone riding a great black river. It seems Mercer's "Evil" pertains to the society, not just Cho.
Mental illness, as pointed out in today's WorldNetDaily feature, "Are meds to blame for Cho's rampage?" (Bob Unruh), is itself a 'fuzzy math' approach to dealing with human behavior. Unruh lists 20 cases of individuals who murdered others, radomly, and each of the murderers were under the influence of drugs prescribed for "mental illness."
The Wall Street Journal posts a piece by Jonathan Kellerman entitled "Bedlam Revisited: Why the Virginia Tech shooter was not committed." Kellerman touches on the history of America's management of mental illness, from the de-institutionalilzation (which began in the 1950's, not the 1970's) to the modern circumstance of an enormous out-patient population dependent on prescription drugs. As early as 1972, a liberal federal court that mentally ill people had basically the sames rights as anyone else, and deserved an idealistic environment. Obviously the cost of this kind of institutional care was impossible, and patients were released in greater numbers than ever before. Neighborhood centers were developed. "Oxford houses" were formed as early as 1975. Under Hillary Clinton-chaired President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform, 1992, more attention came their way. Oxford houses put the mentally ill right next door to you, so that normal citizens were coerced into forming part of the care system for the mentally ill. Remember, "it takes a village," the communal, communist way. This nightmare was based on the private, protected information about the patient. No one was allowed to know anything about the patient, his history, his problems, or what to expect. The maladaptive behavior was not to be identified as "mentally ill," for that would be prejudice, and a denial of the patient's rights. Remember, liberals will have no distinctions. In the name of equality, the ill are legally the same as the well. The evil are equal to the good.
The "rights" of the mentally ill, the criminal, and the foreigner, have developed into lethal liberal weapons against the peace and prosperity of American society. There is no question about that.
So, the matter of illness pertains to the social laws, not the individuals. The matter of evil pertains to those in charge, not those in their charge. Of course Cho was ill, and evil. The idea that society creates and fosters such a lusu naturae is neither profound nor incorrect. It is rather obvious. There are weak people in the world. They cannot resist temptation. Under liberalism, weakness reigns. Yet, even in the strong hearted, culpability still rests on many, even though the strong believe each individual is also responsible for himself. But, if there are creatures among us without conscience, there is no legislation that can redeem them.
Kellerman references Thomas Szasz and his famous book, "The Myth of Mental Illness" (1960). However, an important balance on the subject of mental illness from the sociological point of view, is my favorite: Robert Castel, The Regulation of Madness: The Origins of Incarceration in France (1976). While Szasz suggests that the whole business of treating "mental illness" should be entirely independent from the state, Castel's history clearly shows it never has been. The thought of drug prescriptions unbound by state regulations is a more frightening prospect than the present situation--when the state controls all.
Ill or evil, is that a question? Evil or ill, is that a promising path of inquiry? I have long noted that, when mental illness 'strikes,' often the first thing to go is personal hygiene. Some form of dependency is evolved. Some kind of offense. This is objective. A normal child is "mentally ill" according to these concepts. The toddler has to be cleaned, fed, and watched. But he grows toward independence. The mentally ill person has either regressed, or else never developed the expected independence. Danger to oneself and to others is an inevitable side effect of dependency.
In a way, mental illness is a sociological phenomenon. Certainly, it's effects are measured therein and thereupon. If the metally ill were left to himself, he might die from some sort of abuse, self-inflicted or otherwise. Institutions once seemed the convenient way of taking him out; that was seen by liberals as cruel. Better have everyone care for him. Move him into the neighborhoods.
Cho was protected by liberal concepts. Cho was preserved for ill and evil. Did he take advantage, or did liberals take advantage of him? Perhaps both. And both illness and evil were involved. There is no need to distinguish.
Illness is a modern, self-conceited professional term. Evil is an ancient, romantic sort of expression. The only point in distinguishing them is for academic purposes. Evil is associated with "religion," therefore modern scientists eschew such a term. Mental illness is their preferred fantasy. But the results are the same. The ill and the evil simply must be watched. Society must be protected from them.
I'd really like to know: are the mentally ill capable of sadness, or sorrow, of remorse? Are they hurt by their own incapacities? Do they know they are injured? Are they aware of their deformity?
It seems to me that sorrow alone, in the heart of the individual, is the only sign of true mental health. The liberal version of professional lamentation, of colossal media mourning, is itself so obviously insincere that it bespeaks some grand mental illness itself. Its chorus of criers resounds with the hideous, empty echoes of an abandoned soul.
Rudy "Youngblood" faces a very difficult problem as a person claiming to be Indian but never having named his blood family (and having lied about it numerous times). He is struggling, as evident in his last support piece in BackStage.com (Lauren Horwitch), "Apocalypto Fires Back." But he's firing with blanks again.
"Youngblood says he is unequivocally Comanche by blood and is baffled by Yeagley's claims." Having never once demonstrated any blood connection to any tribe, Rudy is surprised someone would question his claim? "Baffled" that someone he doesn't know would bring up the point? This simply shows Rudy has no real understanding or appreciation of what it means to be Indian.
"It's the most disrespectful thing to have somebody badger or attack some of my family. You just don't do that," Youngblood said. No, indeed. What you do is identify yourself, so people won't have to question you. What you do is name your family, if you have one. Liars can't assume everyone is going to believe them. Furthermore, the asking around for family is the result of Rudy's refusal to identify himself in truth. Rudy is experiencing the consequences of very poor judgement and even poorer management, from someone who should have known better, Michelle R. Hall ("Shining Elk"). To step into stardom, with a false or non-demonstrated Indian identity is anathema among Indians. She of all people should have known that.
"He added that the statement on his Internet Movie Database biography that his mother is half African-American is incorrect." How did the statement get on there, and why was it allowed to stay? Why did Rudy make a series of photos exploiting his nappy wet hair, aggrandizing the inner city ghetto look? Which part are we denying here, Rudy? The African-American part, or the part that it comes from your mother? Does it come from another 'family' member? We don't know. You won't tell.
Rudy "Youngblood" Gonzalez
Rudy claims he can prove he is Comanche, at least one-eighth. "It's just taking the time. It's a long process. It's very drawn out. [But] it's not like I can't," he said. What's long and drawn out about a birth certificate? What's long and drawn out about knowing who your family is? If any of them are really Indian, they've been on the rolls a long time. Why aren't you on, Rudy? Why didn't they put you on? You should have thought about all this before you claimed being Indian. Or, more than likely, you didn't know. You're not Indian. How would you know?
Liberal Lauren Horwitch then cites some recent blogs of mine, trying to make the hackneyed case of liberalism against conservativsm. That's supposed to somehow provide support for Rudy, and magically put Indian blood in his veins.
"Youngblood said his fame as a Native American actor does not require him to prove his ancestry to others in the Native community. "I understand I'm in the public eye, but there is a line.... I don't need to show anybody anything," he said." Here are perhaps the most revealing statements of all. Rudy show he has absolutely no knowledge of Indian people or custom. He needs to show everyone everything. That's the Indain way when it comes to claiming connection. He won't even name his parents.
Can he? Is Rudy "Youngblood" an illegitimate child? Does he not know who his mother and father really are? He may not be able to provide such information. Maybe it isn't because he won't, but because he literally can't. This is where his denials are leading people. These are the thoughts we have to think. Those who have done social work know how difficult a child's life can be when he doesn't know who a parent actually is. Perhaps this is the kind of thing Rudy lives with. That's a tough situation, made impossible by his notoriety.
Well, someone should have told him what would happen. All these wonderful Indian "family" members and "relatives" he claims should have told him. You simply cannot jump out in the arena--of Hollywood, and expect to get a free pass as an Indian just because you have darker coloring. It's not that time in history anymore. Indians are under seige--for a number of intense reasons. Indian identity is attacked as never before. People like Ward Churchill usurped Indian identity, made a smart living off it, all for the purpose of attacking America! Rudy's not doing that, but Rudy's usurping Indian identity--and that only opens the door for other to do the same. This is perilous, indeed.
"I never wanted to be famous; I still don't." This Rudy says, after auditioning to play in a movie! Incredibly wrong words, wrong thinking. Lying? How can it be, that one shuns the lime light, while auditioning for it?
Horwitch tries to work in a Mel Gibson quote, interestingly, since the whole reason there has been any publicity on Rudy's dishonesty is due to the liberal attack on Gibson. She says Rudy said Gibson said. Okay. "People like that will never be happy. Jealousy eats at you, and all they have is driven by hate." Who knows the source? It doesn't matter. It is the weakest of all positions to defend Rudy, and if it did come from Gibson, he obviously wan't privy to the Indian issue. Like many whites, particularly show people, he's been more than willing to believe whatever he's told about Indians.
Of course, Rudy's manager, Michelle R. Hall ("Shining Elk") desperately picked up on the "Gibson" quote on her blog. Yeagley must be hateful and jealous. There can be no other reason he would question poor little unidentified Rudy. Liberal Technorati dramatizes the same idea. But this is called 'red herring.' My spiritual character is not the issue. We're looking for blood. Rudy's Indian blood. For six months (not a year) I have been asking for evidence. None has been provided. Only lies, evasions, and unfounded assertions.
Mark Reed, American Indians in Film and tv, left;
Karen Narasaki, president of the Asian American
Justice Center, middle; and Alex Nogales with the
National Latino Media Council, present the Network
Diversity Report Card at a news conference Dec.
1, 2005. (AP)
Mark Reed, chairman of American Indians in Film and Television, was concerned about Rudy as well. At least Horwitch had the nerve to report that. Problem is, there isn't much to identify Reed with. There is no web site yet for American Indians in Flim and Television. The name appears on other blogs and news reports. Reed has spoken out, however, about the need for Indians to get roles. If Rudy isn't Indian, he's making it harder for real Indians. Every delay in validating Rudy's identity brings shame and doubt on Indian actors, and makes it less likely they will be hired. Web site or no, Reed speaks the truth.
The other matter that concerns me is the manifold and manifest hypocrisy of people who accuse me, and not Rudy. Their mantra against me is that I am not Indian, therefore my conservative positions are invalid. They profess to stand up for Indian identity. Some of these people have bathered out protracted theses on the importance of authenticity in Indian profession, and also that the entertainment field especially should hire only Indians for Indian roles, be those roles for acting, directing, composing scores, etc. Yet these same people are--for the sake of contradicting me--fully supporting Rudy No Blood. This is liberalism. No principle, no consistency, and no positive purpose. It's all about personal power, evidently, no matter how small, how unworthy, or insignificant. They are simply without moral standards.
So, for the record, here are the major articles on the No Blood crisis:
'Apocalypto' actor's ancestry questioned March 28, 2007 LA Times
Pundit Questions Actor's Ancestry March 29, 2007 BackStage.com
'Apocalypto' Actor Under Fire About Heritage April 12, 2007 BackStage.com
'Apocalypto' Actor Fires Back on Heritage Claims April 18, 2007 BackStage.com
The big media first posed the question in the New York Daily News, December 26, 2006. (The story has been archived, but I commented on it on the BadEagle Journal the same day. A piece of the article is preserved here.)
I stood up for the Tahchawwickah family name, though I did not know the family. I stood up for the integrity of Indian identity, and the precious values of Indian blood, and the honor of our fathers who sacrificed their lives to preserve their children. I said, Rudy, if you're not Indian, don't claim to be. He claims he is, but won't name a family member who is, and he immaturely, wrongly, and insulting claims he doesn't have to show anything to anybody.
Rudy therfore insults and offends every tribe he has claimed to be blood kin to. Rudy insults the very claim to be Indian. Rudy of course doesn't mean to do any of this, but that is in fact what he is doing. Indians that support him in this false identity risk their own reputation among Indians. Do their care about Indians or not? Is anyone Indian, just by claiming it?
Sick of killings? Then kill the killer, immediately.
Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a senior from South Korea who was in the English department at Virginia Tech and lived on campus, apparently murdered over thirty people yesterday, including faculty and students. No one stopped him.
This is what liberals love to see: victims and rescuers. "Emergency workers carried
people from Norris Hall on the campus of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va., on Monday
after a gunman killed 32 people. Alan Kim/The Roanoke Times, Associated Press
The "massacre" (that is, mass murder) has of course spawned the mass mourning which the media loves so dearly. True to liberal form, the lamentation is the point, not intervention or prevention. This is going to be another protracted funerary function, full of new statistics, new heights of shock, dismay, outrage, and condemnation--for gun owners, no doubt. It will be used as the latest justification for the anti-2nd Amendent movement.
Liberals love to blame American values for all American problems, foreign and domestic. Though liberals are light on entertainment, such as violent video games and movies (since much of their political money comes from the entertainment industry), liberals are nevertheless quick to condemn personal gun ownership and possession. Globalists generally back the United Nations position that all populations should be disarmed. Liberals love to blame guns.
But I blame liberals. Liberals have already disarmed the people, psychologically. People are afraid to defend themselves. The students at Virginia Tech were afraid to respond. They didn't know how to respond. They have been trained to think responding is wrong. Morally wrong. Thus, they are totally weak, and unprepared. They can only be victims.
People are afraid to take the responsibility of owning and learning to use a weapon. That's a 'dirty job,' and we pay other people to do it. I spoke about this at Florida State University, April 4, 2007. It is related to two things: 1) the division of labor; and 2) learned aversion to weapons. Having a weapon is a tremendous responsibility, though it didn't used to be. In the 1600's, in the American colonies, it was the law that every man owned and knew how to use a rifle. In 1635, in Maryland, anyone moving into the territory was required to have a fire arm. In 1619, Viriginia required men to bring their weapons to church on Sunday morning! Such were the precarious circumstances in those days. But today we assigned this to trained professionals, and deem ourselves above such concerns. We're paying others to protect us. (But, obviously, they can't. It is logistically impossible and irrational to think they can.) People have been liberally trained to think that owning a weapon, and knowing how to use it, is a heathen sort of thing. It is degrading to the person, it is unkind. Why, it's even un-Christian. Liberals manipulate the conscience, and thus disarm the public. It is a righteous thing not to own a gun.
Thus liberals prepare the scene for murderers, terrorists, and other satanic perverts, and at the same time provide themselves opportunity to show their superior righteousness by aggrandized lamentations. Such occasions as the VA Tech murders, which, in lesser numbers, occur frequently on American college campuses, are simply opportunities for the liberal rhetoric of lamentation. Instead of this, these should be opportunitites to re-train the minds of all people that there is simply no longer any safe, peaceful place in the earth. Anyone, at any time, is a potential threat. That is the abundant fact.
The people need to be re-programmed to respond immediately--with violence! There were no heroic acts in the VA Tech incident, contrary to liberal media reports. Hiding behind a desk, or jumping out a window is not a heroic act! This is the lie of liberalism. There is no honor in escaping. The honor is in taking the killer out, immediately. Respond to violence with violence--immediately, without hesitation, without thought, and without error.
You don't stand around and watch, like the police, like the professional gun toters. You don't barricade yourself in a room, or behind a desk. You attack the attacker. Throw something at him. Distract him. Repond immediately! You will thus throw him completely off guard. He's expecting a free ride, you know. Resistance would terrify him.
In a group situation, someone might indeed get killed, but, if the group responded, the matter would be ended quickly. A whole new psychology needs to be put in place. People not only have the right to defend themselves--with force, but also people have the responsibility to defend themselves--and their fellow citizens.
I'm sick of these killings. I'm sick of the weakness that allows them. I'm sick of the liberal philosophy of victimhood. That philosophy creates more and more victims!
We don't need a pscyhoanalysis of Cho Seung-Hui. We don't need an endless, professional explanation of why it happened, or a dramatized lamentation of the fact it did happen. This is not helpful. The only thing we need is a new mind set, a new empowerment, a new determination to eliminate killers--quickly. We need to know that it is our right and responsibility to defend ourselves.
Even video games allow that.
The Imus Incident is endless. The interpretations are becoming about as mistaken as the original offense. Conservative talk radio hosts, taking the Limbaugh lead, are all thinking the Imus Incident is an attempt to shut down conservative radio. Fine. Consider it an attack.
But I'm concerned about black people.
Rutgers women's basketball coach, C. Vivian Stringer, failing to win a single championship in 25 years, won a different kind of trophy in American culture: she led black people into the lowest state of mind in the history of American Negro history. The queen of weakness, Stringer dramatized, in a spectacular way, the complete dissatisfaction of black people--with themselves.
C. Vivian Stringer, coach of the Rutgers University women's basketball team, talks
at the Rutgers Athletic Center in Piscataway, N.J., Thursday, April 12, 2007, about
the controversy over remarks made about the team by radio personality Don Imus.
The team will meet privately with Imus before the end of the week, said women's
basketball team spokeswoman Stacey Brann. (AP Photo/Mike Derer)
Stringer held a national press conference (full of eager liberals, more than willing to provide all the converage conceivable), and dramatized her personal challenges as a young black girl, and effectively persuaded the media (--only the media) that black women are the most pitiful, abused, unhappy creatures on the earth, and the supreme hurt, along with the triumphant lamentations following, represent the truest confession of black misery on record.
"I'm hurt!" "You wronged me!" What a mantra. It is morally macabre. It is slavery.
In a way as never before, a black woman indeed more eloquently pronounced this state of black degradation than all the Sharpton's and Jackson's put together. They are clownish entertainers compared to Stringer. She represents the truest, most perfectly 'articulated' voice of slavery in modern times.
She denounced Imus for making "racist and sexist remarks that are deplorable, despicable and abominable," "insensitive and hurtful," "unconcionable," and she 'coached' the black girls on her team to dramatize the same sentimients. They've all been terribly wronged. That's the message. "This has scarred me for life," said guard Matee Ajavon. Junior captain Essence Carson said that Imus has "stolen a moment of pure grace for us." (The Scarlet Knights didn't win the championship, so I'm not sure what moment she spoke of. And no one spoke of the Tennessee girls who actually won, but, I digress.)
Vivian Stringer, wiped away tears as she recounted her own battles with racism and said she won't let Imus "steal our joy." Then, in a bit less than perfect 'articulation,' said it's not about the players "as black or nappy-headed. It's about us as a people. When there is not equality for all, or when there has been denied equality for one, there has been denied equality for all."
And so goes the perfunctory writhing, so depressing, so hackneyed, and so denigrating to the spirit. Complaining before the world doesn't uplift anyone, but degrades everyone. For the white liberal, and the constipated white conservative, playing with ethnic protest is a great political sport. It is a grand opportunity for news and campaigning. This is also sickening, and may in fact be at the bottom of the whole problem. Ethnic groups are so childish, so mindless, that they can't see how they're being played with by the white Western society. The darkies indeed play into the game, professionally!
In the case of the American Negro, it is abundantly clear that they are still in slavery. Their professional leaders are their own task masters. They whip their own into a fervent weakness. They drive them into intense dependence. Just think, every thought a white person thinks, every word a non-black speaks, is occasion for protest. In this servile condition, no black will ever be satisfied, no black will ever be happy. They have become a horde of emotional leeches, a mass of psychological parasites, living off the conscience of whites.
But they are mistaken. It isn't the conscience of whites at all. Whites are untouchable. This is a political game, nothing more. It is a game of mock conscience and mock justice. White play ball with ethnic groups. Blacks are bounced around like a ball. Whoever pays them the most, they'll dance for. For a black to even think that his highly studied emotional manipulations reach the heart of the white man only shows how dark the black man's mind really is. He is 'in the dark.'
Ah, but Malcom X wasn't in the dark. He who alone offered human pride and self-respect to black people was at last murdered by them. Isn't that a likely story, right here in America. So many blacks don't want freedom.
No, they apparently prefer slavery. "I'm hurt. You hurt me. You owe me!" That's all they know. That's a sure thing, in their mind. The black people in this country who are not slaves, are too free to be heard from. They apparently don't even bother declaring their freedom. They're just free, in themselves. They don't try to make a living off proclaiming their freedom.
But the hos and the ho mastuhs are happy to be nappy, indeed. They love keeping black people pitiful, unbeautiful, and dependent. It's a good living. They know how to use their own.
Blogger Dan McLaughlin is thinking in the right direction on this issue. Sticks and Stones at Rutgers has some tough love. Most of it is for Vivian Stringer, but also for Rutgers. He says the whole press conference (cry party) should never have been allowed.
"When someone calls you a 'nappy headed ho,' you should not feel the need to call a press conference to deny it. Maybe these young women don't know that - but if they don't, it was the business of someone in a position of authority to teach them. Shame on Vivian Stringer and Rutgers University for failing to teach them that."
Black people have remained children for three hundred years. Maybe they'll never change. Despite the media's lust for drama, and the political world's need for issues, and the constant attention black people generate, the fact is American people in general are sick of blacks. Sick of their attitude, their words, their influence, and their utter lack of morals (as Reverend Jesse Peterson points out). Not that any other group is particularly exempt from such failures, but, black people have made a living off failure. Weakness their strength. What they shouldn't even care about, they make a career out of.
And who provided this 'way out?' Your local cracker barrel.
Tomorrow night, Saturday, April 14, 200, Rudy No Blood is scheduled to receive a special award from First Americans in the Arts, for his accomplishments as lead actor in Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. (Details about the Indian Hollywood award have been removed from his website, which is a very fast-changing website, particularly the biographical information.)
For months, after BadEagle.com pressed for a family name for Rudy "Youngblood," Rudy claimed he was the son of Preston Tachawwickah, a well-known and respected Comanche. This claim, of course, was made two years after Preston had died. He confessed to the Los Angeles Times (March 28), "that Preston Tahchawwickah was not his biological father but his ceremonially adoptive father." LA Times cited several close family members who either didn't know Rudy, or denied that he was anything to Preston. "Dawn Tahchawwickah of Dallas, Preston's daughter and Rodney's half-sister, described Youngblood as 'only a family friend,' adding, 'He is nothing to my father.'" Lance Tahchawwicka, an Indian whom relatives told BadEagle was himself a legally adopted son, calls Rudy his "brother." An 'emotional' term, obviously. "Indian way?"
BadEagle was informed as of late yesterday afternoon, that Comanche chairman Wallace Coffey will be attending the award ceremony in Beverly Hills. Mr. Coffey has taken a shine to Rudy from the first hearing that Rudy claimed he was Comanche. Mr. Coffey arranged a big party (rumored to the tune of $15,000) for Rudy at the Comanche Nation headquarters back in December (9), 2006. Rudy was given many expensive gifts, BadEagle was told. It was a private party, invitation only, actually, a pre-showing of Apocalypto. A wonderful photo op it was, and a big story and pictures appeared in the January edition of the Comanche Nations News. News about it also appeared on CampCrier, a privately created Comanche News web site. This was all designed to make Rudy "accepted" as a Comanche, even though no one knew him, and no one knew he was not Comanche, or not even American Indian at all.
Why is Mr. Coffey taking this supportive role for Rudy No Blood? Because Mr. Coffey is a compassionate man, concerned about young people, and sees Rudy as a good role model. These would be the most probable reasons. He is certainly spending tribal money in this effort. Air travel and hotel expence in Hollywood, plus the presence at the First Americans in the Arts dinner, not only for himself but for at least two other people (that we know of), is a pretty penny. Of course, there are any number of reasons to justify this effort.
I do not wish to argue any of that. These days, almost tribal leadership is in the 'godfather' style. You need something, you wait in line and ask for it. Wallace is a very fatherly, compassionate person, and tries to help as many people as he can. Of course, as in any leadership, some people like you, others hate you. "He buys votes," some say. But this style of leadership is understood, and common. I have been supportive of Wallace, though I have received nothing personally, nor have asked anything specific. I've made a few suggestions.
I am concerned, however, that Mr. Coffey not be embarrassed in all of Indian Country by making any inappropriate pronouncements at the FAITA dinner. I do not know if he is aware of the recent publicity about Rudy. I have informed him by email alone. I did not know he was scheduled to appear at the FAITA dinner until he had left tribal headquaters yesterday. I found out from office workers just before I left. I feeI must protect the imge of my own chairman, and my own tribe. Rudy has shamed all Indians, in my opinion. Why is Wallace Coffey going to be there when Rudy is honored? Will he espouse Rudy as a Comanche, in front of an Indian crowd that by now knows that Rudy has lied, dramatically, about his identity? Will Mr. Coffey profess that Rudy is some kind of officially "adopted" Comanche member--on Mr. Coffey's own personal account? Will that validate Rudy?
Whatever Wallace Coffey says, it won't magically create Comanche blood in Rudy No Blood Gonzalez. Whatever he says, it won't change the fact that Rudy has lied repeatedly. When the Tahchawwickah "paternal" connection proven false, Rudy changed his story to say that his mother is the one who is Comanche. But no one knew her name (Roberta Rangel) and her name is not on the Comanche rolls, nor on any other Indian tribal roll, that anyone knows anything about. Rudy cannot or will not offer the most basic information about who he is. Whatever his personal problems are, whatever his background, whatever or whoever his parents actually are, his claim to be American Indian affects Indian people everywhere, and since he will not substantiate his claim, he cannot and should not be accepted as an Indian. He can be welcomed into any tribe, but that doesn't give him Indian blood. That makes him a welcomed friend. (But, who wants to welcome a liar, based on his lies? Is that a good example for young people? Lie your way into acceptance and success?)
Finally, Wallace Coffey may be there to support Rudy, to say Comanches accept him, but this will not be true if it is said. Comanches don't know Rudy, and the one's that do know him know he is not Comanche. Many people are offended--especially the Tahchawwickha family, and understandably so. Wallace is acting personally, not for the nation. If he supports Rudy, and he obviously does, it is a personal decision, and does not represent the numunu. There has been no national 'vote' on this. If one individual wants to accept Rudy, like Wallace, then that is that. A Comanche, or two, or three, or even a group, may decide accept Rudy. That still doesn't give Rudy Comanche blood, and still doesn't mean the Comanche nation accepts him. At all.
In America, the national Indian issue is blood. Wallace Coffee, a full blood Comanche, is generous with the identity in this case. Many full bloods are generous with Indian identity. But Indians out in the white world, competing with whites, Indians, and other 'minorities,' are not so generous. Indeed, they cannot be. They must not be. Indian identity is precious, not to be given away. If tribal leaders feel generous with casino money, with Indian identity, it must be understood that they simply do not represent the whole of Indian people. Let it also be said that they do not understand the adverse effects of tribe hopping fantasies like those of Rudy No Blood--adverse effects on other Indians trying to make a living for themselves in the competitive world.
Yes, Indians are generally family oriented. But an elected chairman acts in a capacity that is to be understood as representing all the families, even if he won the office by a margine of one vote! Therefore, I believe it is in the best interests of all Indians, everywhere, for Indian leaders to let it be understood that they represent entrusted power to make decisions for their particular tribe, and yet those particular decisions don't necessarily represent that tribe, certainly not the whole tribe.
Certainly not in the case of Rudy "Youngblood" Gonzalez. The young man who has claimed to be a member of all the major Indian tribes of North America has not demonstrated membership or blood kin in any. I say Indian identity is not up for grabs to every brown skin (in this case Mexican) who wants it. But, apparently Rudy No Blood is up for grabs, for any tribe who wants him. Unfortunately, only certain individuals are enamoured with him, with a young movie star, with a deceptively simple, sweet young person, who can lie like nobody's business. And yes, he has an illegitimate young child by an Indian girl in Oklahoma (who's name and tribe I know but will not mention, out of respect). Having a child by an Indian girl doesn't make Rudy Indian. I for one don't see the exemplary quality of Rudy No Blood. Movie star achievements don't convince me. There are so many other Indian young people who are so much more honorable and worthy. Accepting and honoring Rudy doesn't encourage the right values, in my opinion. It insults the real Indian youth, whose parents may be trying to teach them honesty and integrity.
Recent publicity about Rudy is growing. Even Indianz.com is in the fray with Actor Urged to Document Comanche Blood Ties, and Bad Eagle Questions Comanche ancestry of Actor. BackStage.com, a Hollywood actors trade magazine, published two articles: Pundit Questions Actor's Ancestry, and 'Apocalypto' Actor Under Fire About Heritage. In the latter article, Mark Reed joins in. Reed is chairman and national representative for American Indians in Film and Television, an advocacy group for Native Americans in entertainment. Reed says its time for Rudy to own up. "When you become a public figure as an actor, then the public owns you, and you need to dispel these kinds of rumors and charges because it has a great impact on the rest of the Indians," he said. "It's no different than being a public figure and you say, 'I have a Harvard degree.' Well, show me your degree."
Wallace apparently wants to give Rudy the equivalent of an 'honorary degree.' I just don't see what's honorable about lying.
Rudy definitely happens to have nappy hair (not declared an offensive term yet, nor is kinky,
or tight), but adds straight hair pieces now and then. Why, it's an old Comanche custom, right?
adding on hair just to make it longer? Longer, but not straighter. Sorry Rudy. Why can't you just
say who and what you really are?
UPDATE: According to MediaMatters.com, the person who first said "hard core hos" was Imus' producer Bernard McGuirk. This is not evident from the infamous video clip--except perhaps to those fans or insiders who know the voices intimately, or have access to the entire clip. The clip's guest is identified as Sid Rosenberg. On the clip available and cited, there is no indication, visually or aurally, of Bernard McGuirk speaking.
In a superficial sports conversation with radio talk show host Sid Rosenberg (who referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "hard core hos," and later "jigaboos and wannabees"), radio Hall of Famer Don Imus referred to the same team as "nappy-headed hos." They were both expressing the idea that the girls were less than feminine, or other than beauty queen types. They were impressively "rough girls," with "tatoos," Imus said. (See the videos: Alternet/April 11; Newsday.com, etc.
Sid Rosenberg, 790am, Miami Dolphines network
For some reason, Sid Rosenberg is not part of the hysteria that followed these remarks. Imus has been dropped from MSNBC's simulcast scheduling (rather than simply suspended, as early determined), and Staples, Proctor & Gamble, and possibly Bigelow Tea, and other sponsers, have dropped their advertising on the Imus radio talk show.
For those who may not know, (as I, for a good while), "ho" is the "Africanized" term for whore, or the American Negro ghetto slang for prostitute. There are a variety of such black vernaculars. In fact, some of the very worst, most degrading terms for women, particularly black women, were invented by black men--and are used professionally, daily, by modern rappers, comedians, and just common talkers.
That foolish, non-thinking hystericists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would scream outrage at a white man, or white person, for the use of such black terms in reference to black people, only shows how far off reason black 'leaders' have gone. They have reached an all-time low in black American history. This is the most offensive, self-destructing, hurtful position they have ever taken. (Never mind the Duke rape case--that was fake from the start, and neither Jackson nor Sharpton went very far into it. They pulled out early. They knew it was a total lie, just like BadEagle.com declared from the day the accusations were made.)
But in the Imus incident, notice that these bullying black insensates have singled out Imus, not the man who first used the term "hos" in the recorded conversation--Sid Rosenberg. Why do you suppose? Interestingly Rosenberg had been kicked off Imus' show in the past (May, 2005--six weeks after coming out of a substance abuse rehab center) for his 'insensitive' remarks about Kylie Minogue's breast cancer. So, why is he out of the picture in this Imus incident? He instigated it, really.
The veteran radio host, Don Imus, under fire for calling black women
what black men call them.
And never mind the dramatizations of the Rutgers women, their coach, etc. The response of the team, the coach, the media, the liberals, and the "righteous," are all irrelevant. They all miss the two most important points: 1) black men call black women "hos" and much worse, daily, professionally, for much profit; 2) Sid Rosenberg used the word first in the conversation.
"Nappy?" Not a derisive term. Equivalent of "kinky," or "tight" hair. Haven't heard any protest from black studies professor Noliwe Rooks, author of Hair Raising: Beauty, Culture, and African American Women (1996). She used the term for a chapter heading, "Nappy by Nature," (chpt.1), and as a sub-heading in the same chapter, "Happi to be Nappi." This book is not a comedy, or even a satire. It is a serious history of black women and the quest for "beauty" in American white society. (Interestingly, her book was published by Rutgers University Press, though she teaches at Princeton.)
Are there then any real black leaders out there, who are honest with black people, honest with themselves, and honest with non-black people? We wait for such person, man or woman, a black person who is genuine, who is not a manipulator, and who cannot be manipulated. We look for a black leader who does not preach psychological slavery, dependency, and manipulation of others. We seek strength in black people. Such people need to come forward and lead. Probably there are many such, living perfectly quiet lives, some poor, some rich, who disdain involvement in an obviously professional pretense as so well-established by people like Jackson and Sharpton. But, the call is loud and clear. It is a colossal challenge. But there must be a black person in American, from the American Negro people, who can lead, and who is willing to.
Too much, too late? It looks like that was the case in Long Island's east end, on Copeces Lane, at the home of Adriana Leon, a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen from Equador.
After seven years of living in the home, the family was startled as half a dozen federal immigration agents 'stormed' the place, looking for Adriana's ex-husband, Patrizio Wilson Garcia--who had been ordered to deport in 2003, after his divorce from Adriana.
Nina Bernstein's intensely liberal NYTimes report on this incident is desperate to make the Equadoran family appear victimized, yet Bernstein manages to present some reality to the story, if only in the name of "balance" and "equality," presenting "both sides." It's the liberal way, of course, to put lies on the same level as the truth, in the name of balance and equality.
The truth is obvious. The South American hispanic family, as many immigrant (legal or illegal) hispanic families, has used its home as a way station for dozens of other hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal). Bernstein, inspite of herself, reveals the truth. Neighbors have complained of the Equadoran families since 2000. The complaints are all too typical: the property comes to appear like a used car lot, and masses of people (legal or illegal) come for parties, gatherings, etc., and the yard is not kept up well. The whole enterprise (legall or illegal) becomes an eye sore, and represents a foreign style of living. Mass families in transit is not the American style. It is, however, the hispanic style throughout the Americas. Now it's just another foreign element brought into the American culture.
The east end of Long Island is a wealthy beachfront community. They don't appreciate this kind of sloppy living on the part of immigrants (legal or illegal). One has to wonder how the Equadoran family got in there in the first place. Was it some charitable act of some community official? Was it an act of liberal aggression?
One of the residents, Richard Herrlin, said the town has not responded to the steady complaints about the family since 2000. "The town is terrified of being accused of racial insensitivity," he said. Neighbors complain about what they described as the Leons’ noise, trash and traffic. The neighbors' discontent has fed on deeper anger over an influx of Hispanic illegal immigrants on the East End. There are festering grievances about taxes, schools crowded with Spanish speakers and homes turned into rooming houses.
Most of the East Coast hispanics are South American, or Puerto Rican. This is not genrally a Mexican issue, or a border issue, per se. Yet, ideologically, in terms of nationhood, it only shows how deep the issue of immigration really is. In terms of nationhood, American nationhood, it's all the same.
Does any person born in the world have the right to come to America? Does any human being have a birthright to everything America is and has?
Lady Liberty. Let's not make her into a global whore.
There is confusion over the United States Constitution and the poem of immigrant Emma Lazarus, "The New Colossus" (1883). The Constitution extends no such invitation. It merely lays out laws of entry and habitation. Emma Lazarus on the other hand wrote a passionate, poetic expression of her vision of the Statue of Liberty when she saw it. She imagined the giant Lady saying to the world,
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Her words are inscribed on the plaque at the base of the statue. Would that the US Constitution was thus inscribed thither!
The United States was created by Englishmen who were discontent with the way things were in England. They were willing to risk all and start over. Circumstances were peculiar, in that they started over on a new continent--a land well-inhabited by people who considered the white man quite foreign.
But is this history the mandate for all, ever after? The Muslims are coming here with the thought of starting a new nation within America. They are the new colonists. People that come here with the thought of preserving their own culture here, are trying to make white America into the Indian! The foreigners feel they have the right to be who they are, and to ignore and even despise the present culture. That's the Muslims approach, anyway. Their expressed intent is to make America Muslim.
In the case of many hispanics, however, it is a matter of life style more than anything else. That includes their language, their "extended" families, their 'groupie' approach, and of course their racial, ethnic distinction. Birds of a feather flock together. That's all there is to that. It is natural, and one must question the wisdom in trying to undo something that profound.
I say immigration is a bad thing at this point. I say people who are discontent at home need to work things out there. If they really had any love for their country, their ethnicity, and their culture, they would 'risk all' and revolt. I say again, Where is Zapata when you need him? Mexicans need to revolt against the Mexican government.
Remember that the American Revolutionaries fought their own country, England, right here, on this land. This was English land, as they understood it. The Crown controlled the colonies. The war against the crown was fought and won here, not in Europe. Therefore, discontent foreigners need to fight it out right on their own soil, in their own countries, if discontent at home is their reason for coming here.
Muslims are not discontent at home. Muslims simply want to make America Muslim. Muslims are making America the Indian, indeed. Let America learn the lesson, then, from the Indian. Unite and oust the Muslims immediately. Otherwise, you will have a new nation in your midst, and one that is alien to your every value, one that will oppress you beyond anything you've ever been accused of. And they won't leave you any reservations. They won't make any treaties with you. They are not like you.
There is no need to search for Muslims. They are everywhere, and openly Muslim. Legal? Since when is insurrection and subversion legal? It's called treason. A true Muslims is a traitor to America. Plain and simple. The reason they are here is to colonize, to build a Muslims nation within, and to take over America. That's called treason. They are given this opportunity by white American lawyers, judges, and businessmen, even congressmen, and yes, maybe even by presidents.
The search then is not for Muslims, or even illegal hispanics. The search is for white Americans who betray the country. Hang them, first.
Easter Sunday, April 8, 2007. The Resurrection. That is the focus of the Christian world. Belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ticket to eternity, according to the most basic teachings of the Christian religion. The other belief that goes with that is the belief that Jesus Christ was divine, or, the Son of God.
It is a grand notion, encompassing all that is inside and outside the human spirit. It is not likely, however, that the human spirit is accurate or faithful in this boast. One looks for evidence of the effect of such a triumphant belief. What are the effects on the human believer, individually and collectively? The Pope's statement today was surely most difficult. His lamentation of war and suffereing was but perfunctory, and his statement that "nothing positive comes from Iraq" was most tragic and detrimental to all. Not only was it incorrect, but it was astounding and reprehensible that one in his position should say it. (That is my personal opinion. He has the right to his, even if ex cathedra.)
As observed in yesterday's Journal entry, humanity can ill be trusted in spiritual judgement. We play poor host to the divine. We are simply incapable. In the face of Jesus Christ, Peter demonstrated most piquantly the impropriety of human vision. "Whom say ye that I am?" Jesus asked. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Peter answered in grandiose confidence. (Matthiew 16:15,16.) Considering the fact that immediately following this testimony, Peter vehemently contradicted Christ, and tried to prevent him from doing precisely what he can come into the world to do--to die for the sins of the world (16:22), we cannot believe that Peter's belief was whole or sound. It implies either a mistunderstanding of the messiah, or of the living God, or both. Or, does one presume to instruct the Almighty? Peter was ready to fight to the death for the Jesus he believed in (John 18:10), but not to be shamed or even ridiculed for some other Jesus (26:33, 34).
Peter, we love you. We are like you.
In fact, it doesn't appear that Peter believed that Jesus was divine. "Son of the living God" apparently meant some divinely inspired man, some messenger, some instrument of God--like no other, true, but it still did not include the notion that Jesus was the living God in human flesh. Only the Father in heaven was God.
It is a fact: the one supreme testimony of the divinity of Jesus is the virgin birth. It is also a fact that this testimony is given once, by only two of the gospel writers, Matthew (1:18-21) and Luke (1:28-35), and never mentioned again. The virgin birth is not mentioned again in the entire remainder of the New Testament. We are told that it was hidden, kept secret, in the heart of Mary. The young mother, herself a child, herself the only human being who knew the virgin birth was a fact, "kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart" (Luke 2: 19, 51). The supreme evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ was not part of his own testimony, and not part of the belief of the disciples, nor was it evidently considered a doctrine in the early Jewish sect of Jesus followers.
Yet, to profess belief in Jesus Christ, without belief in the virgin birth, is merely some wild ego extension--unwilling to bear the disdain, indeed the mockery, that virgin birth engenders. Peter really didn't believe in Jesus as divine. Peter believed in a magic man, a miracle worker, a political God-send who was about to save Israel from abject frustration and loss. Christians today are very much like Peter. Belief in Christ is supposed to mean good things are going to happen. Belief in Christ is a solution to gigantic challenges, both personal and yes, national. Crucifixion--sacrifice and total loss, is not supposed to be part of the picture.
Jesus told Peter that there needed to be a change all right, but he didn't foresee a change in Israel. It was a change in Peter. "When thou art converted," Jesus said, "strengthen the brethren" (Luke 22:32). Of course, Peter vehemently denounced this personal indictment, and boldly asserted he was ready to go to prison and to death for Jesus--that is, for the cause, for the new knesset, the new regime. But he wasn't willing to die for Jesus, born of a virgin, the Eternal One--in human form. Peter apparently wasn't even aware of that reality. And Peter's grand vision for Israel caused him to deny even the belief he did have in Jesus--as that vision's triumphant leader.
Such is the human spirit in divine things: mistaken, unreliable, and unconverted. The phenomenological fact that the New Testament scriptures hid the true divinity of Christ in the heart of young Mary, and apparently kept it there, indefinitely, only testifies to the psychological inevitabilities in the reality of the human mind. Our consciousness simply cannot sustain a miracle. We cannot well harbor the truth. We know the human Jesus, and naturally, we argue with him. Like Peter. We have our own notions of what is to happen. We therefore try to lead Jesus there. We seem unable to be led.
But we only contribute to the cause of God when we are in fact converted, when we do see our own ineptitude, and we can understand our humble condition. Peter arrived, later. Peter surely came to understand, later. We read of him, and yet immediately imagine that we are there--"later," for the mere reading of his experience. We can see what happened to him. How therefore can we possibly mistake who and what we are? How can we see the pattern so clearly, and not see ourselves in it? Why do we react as though we are 'arrived' and exempt, simply because we see the error in someone else?
David said only the truly enlightened, the truly forgiven, the man who does understand his condition, is a stone in the walls of Jerusalem. (Psalm 51:18.) Only the true believer contributes to the strength of Zion. Any other belief is treachery. Forgiveness is indeed the divine miracle, indeed, for which we are desperate. If the death of Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the human race, then Christ must be divine. Born of a virgin.
It is not likely that any understand this. We're like Peter. We're like the Pope. We're grandiose. We believe what doesn't embarrass us. We believe what we think is complimentary, not stupid. We want respect, not ridicule.
Perhaps we've all hid Mary's secret in our own hearts. If Mary had told everyone the truth, she would have been taken for a liar and a fallen woman, even as a young girl. Mary never betrayed Jesus, but she was hard pressed to understand him. At best, we are all hard pressed to understand. Perhaps we should be less boastful about the beliefs we happen find exciting and complimentary, and more frank about the things we must believe, but really don't.
The closer Jesus came to his execution, the less his closest friends understood him and what he had to say. The closer he came to a public slaughter, the more alienated they became from him. The irony is profound.
He was their chance to make it big. Their only chance. There were many political factions in Israel in the first century, as in all centuries. There were those who advocated complete separation from Roman authority, no imperial taxes, no presence of Roman military or governorships. These were radical folk, and dangerous. There were other who courted Roman favor as the best way to surive, and even to prosper. Some called these traitors.
Whatever the case, regime change was on the agenda. Major change was in the wind. The few that gathered about Jesus, and stayed with him, just knew he was going to make it all happen. It was an poorly financed group, as were many charitable factions, scholarly groups, and other meaningful organizations. Jesus' group was a kind of chaburah (cf. caberet), a dinner club--whose members didn't necessarily wash their hands before they ate. Not the kind of group that represented the traditional Jewish identity. But he had power. Strange power. Why, he could really do it. He could bring about the revolution!
These few men put all their money on Jesus. They bet everything on him--all for a mistaken expectation, and one that he could not correct. "Son of David" he was, and therefore bound for the throne. Such was the current cultural lore lurking in Roman-occupied Israel. Even the Zadokite Qumran community, the ultra orthodox of the time, had it that the messiah was to be a king. See, F. F. Bruce, New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Eerdmann's, 1968), pp.76,77. Jesus denied this, specifically, according to Matthew 22:41-46. Ah, but hope springs eternal. The disciples believed what they wanted to believe. It was a cultural catharsis. It was Jewish, and it was right. It was time. They would lead Jesus thither. (We need to watch out for that tendency...to lead Jesus...)
But they were wrong. And, behold, even in the face of the resurrected Jesus, (who was still no more than a humble carpenter), they asked, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel?" Acts 1:6. That's all they really wanted out of him. They had no concept of anything else. That's all they knew to believe. That's all they knew how to believe. They were born for the throne. They were the new knesset, the new regime. And this regime was to be free, independent, and the leader of the world in these same enterprises.
Such is the condition of the human mind, in the presence of the divine. We must recognize this in humble awe. We are mistaken, at best. Certainly, in the things of God, we are in error.
No, I'm personally not too big into Christian holidays. I find no scriptural call for such, but there's certainly nothing wrong with Easter, Christmas, or any other celebration of such magnitude, is there? Personally, I simply don't have confidence in myself in such an effort. I didn't see Mel Gibson's "The Passion" for the same reasons. I don't find enlightenment in the public experience. Great emotional highs, but, not inner renewal. I know God is a great people's man. He loves people to come together and to worship Him--who inhabits the praises of Israel (Psalm 22:3). Maybe I'm actually shy about all this. The public dimension seems especially frought with mistaken notions. I fear the false.
The disciples were false. I dread being like them. They were profoundly mistaken, and remained such before and after the crucifiction, before and after the resurrection. And when Jesus ascended before their eyes, they expected him to return very soon, and make all their dreams come to pass. They were wrong on that, too.
I feel for Jesus. He communicated great and wonderful things, yes. He commuicated the greatest love the world has ever known. Out of the heart of Jerusalem, out of the heart of Jewish life, out of the heart of God. But I cry when I think of how mistaken everyone was around him. They just didn't get it. Not even the essentials--until Jesus was long gone. It is my personal belief that only in a Jewish context could such irony evolve. Only Jewish men could have believed such grand, deep, heavy things, and continued to persevere, though mistaken, though disappointed, and even persecuted for their belief! How did they ever hang on? How did they hold fast their faith?
Matthew 27: 51-53 says at the moment of Jesus' death, there was a great earthquake, and many graves opened and many people were resurrected themselves. They went into Jerusalem and appeared unto many. That must have counted for something. (Yet, true to the ironies biblical religion, this is one of the most neglected scriptures in in all the Bible.) Alas, the polemical value of a miracle is weak. Humans believe what they want to believe, despite all evidence or logic to the contrary. That's what the disciples did. They believed the wrong things, and that's why none of them stood with Jesus when he went down. He wasn't supposed to do that, according to their expectations. Therefore, they were at a loss to know what to do, or how to react.
That's humanity. Always at a loss. I'm sorry. I feel too ashamed to celebrate anything. The likelihood of being wrong is just too high.
But I do love Sabbath. Sabbath celebrates me. Jesus said the sabbath was made for man. (Mark 2:27.) That one comes to me. I don't have to do anything. It's here. So, I wish everyone a happy Sabbath, and hopefully, Christians will not be so terribly mistaken about Jesus this time around. Happy Easter Sunday, but just remember the human penchant for error--especially about Jesus.
Sleeping with the enemy is one thing. Trying to spawn a child is another.
It appears that the United States Congress Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is such an adulterous traitor. She is attempting to interfere, contradict, and overrule the Presidency of the United States. This is first of all, illegal, for the Legislative branch of our government does not have the constitutional authority to command the Executive branch, the White House--specifically during time of war. Secondly, because it is a time of war, Speaker Pelosi is guilty of high treason against the United States. She is abusing her office in the most criminal manner. She should be "investigated," to say the least, and then tried and hung. That's what would have happened in earlier American history. Of course, the Democrats have changed all that. The only people suspected of anything now are the American patriots, and, in principle, those are usually found among the Republicans.
Nacy Pelosi decided to act like she was Secretary of State, or even the President, and travel to the land of the enemy, and miraculously open a dialogue with America's avowed enemies, those who hate America, those who support Islamic mass murderers, and those who wish to see Israel abolished. This is Nancy Pelosi. This is beyond the pale. This is the mother of political misanthropy. This is a deeply fallen woman.
Dramatic traitor, Nancy Pelosi
Even the liberal Washington Post denounced her arrogance. She not only took it upon herself to represent those for whom she had no such right, but in her ignorance she completely misrepresented them. "The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message," the Post pointed out. In her delusionary role as the supreme peace-maker, she misrepresented and contradicted the Presidency, abused the position of her own office, and no doubt increased the tensions in the middle east. Her efforts will cost more lives--more innocent lives. That is the Democrat way. In the enemy's lair, she selfishly indulged their hatred of the Bush adminstration and of Israel. It apparently suited her own sentiments. Whether or not this was her intent, only a very deluded, power grasping politician would not see that this is precisely the effect of her improprietous, foolilsh parade of fake diplomacy. Speaker of the House? Speaker for anti-American sentiments.
Naturally, the mass murders all enthusiastically endorced Pelosi as a great American. This was a much needed opportunity for them. Pelosi was happy to provide it. Aaron Klein's WorldNetDaily article read, "Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue:' Militants call House speaker's visit 'brave' and hope for talks with Iran." Anything to humiliate and weaken the Bush administration, and the American effort in Iraq. The Muslims are terrified that Iraq will succeed as a democracy, and they are presently trembling at the current measure of success. The fear of victory runs deep in Democrats. Pelosi simply took drastic measures. She aided and abetted the enemy. She betrayed America in the very deepest sense.
Of course, in a day when war is no longer declared by Congress (not since WWII), these all become matters of interpretation. Peace at any price, surrender, defeat--this is pawned off as victory. Why, America has a grand, exhaustless supply of freedom. We can afford all kinds of tyranny, like having to take our clothes off, publicly, when we board an airplane. Let's spend our freedom, and buy peace.
Pelosi went on a feminist shopping spree, spending foolishly, literally throwing away freedom to the dogs. Casting the pearls before the swine. That's the way to prevent war--just lie down and be raped. That's what Nacy Pelosi did. She threw herself down at the feet of the mass murderers. And loved it. United States Speaker of the House. Heaven have mercy on us.
This evening begins the celebration of Passover, the night, several thousand years ago, during which the Angel of Death would "pass over" the dwellings of the Israelites in Egypt, and spare them from tragedy. Wherever the lamb's blood was daubed on the doors, the Angel would not touch the family. It's all in Exodus 12. "Pesach" (pay-sach with a soft 'k' sound at the end) means 'to spare,' in Hebrew. The English word "passover" doesn't include that essential meaning. Every family in Egypt, including the Pharaoah's, suffered the death of their first born. Every family--except those who had the lamb's blood on their doors. They were spared. Who would have believed such a thing?
But Passover is more than being spared. Passover is also about leaving Egypt, about exodus--coming out of slavery and darkness, and heading toward the Promised Land, or, a new life, a new beginning. It's about leaving an old way of life, walking out into something profound and different. In this sense, it is about courage. Extraordinary courage. Who is willing to change? Who would not prefer his own habits?
Moses, and the call to self-discipline and freedom
This year's Passover is especially meaningful to me. I have been in mourning over the death of my mother for two years, this April 9. (She passed on Sabbath morning, around 9:00.) The memories, the sentimentality, the attachments, the clinging tendencies--these have shackled me, deeply. Toward the end of Februrary, it occurred to me that I need to be willing to walk out of this state of mind. I determined that Passover was just the season for it. I believe the meaning of Passover is a Collective profundity in the human experience. It is a call to every conscious person. I feel it strongly.
We must be willing to walk out of Egypt. It's not easy! We prefer slavery and darkness. We can be scared out of it, maybe, partially, but, the truth is, darkness and slavery always seem easier. Slavery is when you are disciplined by others. Freedom is when you discpline yourself. Slavery is when the responsibility is someone else's. Freedom is when it is yours.
God offers you the Promised Land, but He doesn't bring it to you. You have to get up, leave everything you have, and go to it! You have to make the journey. And that journey may involved severe hardship. The children of Israel thought they were ready to walk right in to Cana'an. Turns out they weren't. They had terrible lessons in discipline ahead of them. In their frustration, some cried, Would God we had died in Egypt! (Exodus 16:3.) Later some complained more, We remember the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlick! (Numbers 11:4-6). Good good, was that Egypt to them? That natural, wonderous self-editing element in the human mind brought to their memories only the good times--good food. They forgot about the pain, the frustration, the hopelessness in Egypt. They remembered the cumcumbers. They forgot about the torture, the low life, the poverty. They remembered the onions. Such is the power of weakness in the human mind. It is strong, indeed.
And people wonder at my love for Jewish people. When one is absorbed in such psychological archetypes as found in Jewish history, how can one not feel awe and affection for the people whose history has traced out the truth of human experience? How can one not be thrilled to know the Jews are still here, in the land of the living? The truth about eternity, about God, about life, it was all mapped out in scripture. That map was written in their blood. The path is carved in their souls. Scripture is the record of Jewish experience. It is the manual of the human spirit. Scripture was created by Jewish experience. The Creator used them, for the benefit of all. Their struggles, their failures, their triumphs, their love, their sorrows, this is all sanctified. This is the Collective guide. This is the Archetype.
I find myself the beneficiary, at least vicariously, of the Jewish experience. How can I feel anything but appreciation and gratitude, and even a fearful reverence for Jewish people. Their personal problems? Their hangp-ups? Not something I dare assert, or delve into, or plead. God created them. I say therefore, beware God.
I want to walk out of Egypt. I want to leave behind my chains. I want to be brave, and strong.
I believe all people are the heirs of Jewish experience. The Creator has ordained it. All people can find themselves, their own redemption, discipline, and freedom, through the Jewish experience. This is what the Bible is for. Of all gods in history, only the God of Israel is the God of all nations, all races, all ethnicities and tribes. The other gods are ethnocentric, pertaining only to the people who worship them. Their gods are like mascots. Their nations were like football teams. The God of Israel is He before whom all nations will one day bow in adoration. (Psalm 72:11.)
Here the word of the Lord.