Continuing our diversion from the intolerable boredom of American politics and the torturous redundancy of media (--to the point we cannot distinguish between entertainment, news, and advertisement), we look deeper into the Asian eagle hunters, and we discover a theme of romance.
In Golden Eagles of Mongolia we observed the Kazakh's Mongolian custom of hunting small game--not with arrows, knives, or guns, but with golden eagles. Exploring further, we report that this custom was feature, briefly, in a fairly recent, truly fabulous movie, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) Chang Chen (who played Lo) was seen for a moment sending off an eagle from his right arm, not to hunt, but to deliver a message. Now there was a twist. An unmentioned element in the annals of eaglry? Certainly, falcons were known to carry messages, but, more often to kill the pigeon carriers. Interestingly, the eagle moment in Crouching Tiger is only for, shall we say, 'local color.' It was thrilling to see, nonetheless.
Chang Chen (Taiwan) as Lo,
in Crouching Tiger.
Of recent months, BadEagle.com has come to know of some Comanche legend that also seems quite relevant to this wondrous Chinese film. There is an unreleased silent movie called Daughter of Dawn (1920) which is based on legend and fiction related by Norbert Miles. (BadEagle.com happens to be privy to this film for certain reasons, to be announced at a later date.) In both films, love, or shall we say, faith in the power of love, involves leaping from a high cliff. This is a strange theme, but it is critical in both films. If your love is true, you do not die, but live forever, even as love lives forever. It is a test of the soul, as it were.
Love and cliff jumping. Imagine. In the wilds of the Gobi Desert in Asia; in the old Wichita Mountains of Oklahoma. Can this possibly be related? Need we consult Freud, or Jung? Does love leap in such a way? I can remember my Comanche mother saying, "Those Orientals are artists at killing themselves." She decried the tendency to suicide. And yet, such a notion apprently existed certainly among old Comanches on the plains, if even in legend. For many American Indian tribes, taking self-inflicted pain was the only way to prove bravery and preparedness for trial. If you could take pain, to the point of passing out, and not bat an eye, you could be depended on. You would never run from battle.
Wolf Robe, Southern Cheyenne
Yet, Comanches were such 'artists' at pragmatism, there was not the element of self-torture as such among them. The idea is to kill someone else first. In other words, just practice your aim.
Of course, the modern Crouching Tiger movie, with all the beauty of modern cinima and special effects, brings love to an overwhelming sense of beauty. The silent film, Daughter of Dawn, may have done the same for the American audience of that day, in the 1920's. We'll never know, since it was never released.
I say only this: the affinity of the American Indian with the Orient is very pronounced at moments like this. Crouching Tiger is an incomparable film. Unfortunately for American Indians, Hollywood has never attempted to recreate any real aesthetic beauty in past Indian life. It is always in the raw, always overshadowed by tragedy, by the agonal shape of true history here. I learned something from Crouching Tiger. It is true that the film is absolute heathenism, pure godlessness, and the quintessense of egotism and self-idolatry. But there is great, stellar beauty in it, because, depsite the centuries of Christianity in the world, people have generally experienced only a miserable admixture of Divine Spirit. We're all human, still, and it is ever so rare than one rises above. Our spirituality in the West is a bloody mess. The Orient has a spirituality that is akin to magic and demonism. I don't call that spiritual life at all. It is the contact of the human ego with the supernatural--and I don't mean the Lord. I mean the supernatural. It is a wild place, for many spirits are gone out into the world. Ah, they've all accommodated themselves so well to human culture, environment, and weather. The gods of the hills, the gods of this land, that river--even of outer space now. Aliens they are. Whatever suits. They're all liars.
Yet, some how, Crouching Dragon, with its eagle hunter, its love leaping theme, its Mongolian setting, speaks to me most deeply. I have noted before that the only thing that redeems me from utter abandonment is, actually, the Sabbath. That thought of holy time, one step beyong the aesthetic, the sensual, the so-called "spiritual," one thought beyond the self, this is all I have between me and the netherworld. The other world. The unseen world.
Crouching Dragon is all about that unseen world. It is all about ego, ascent, the will to power. Yet, it is superior aethetically. Neitzsche could never conceive of such beauty. His vision was ugly. Harry Potter's magic is grotesque and mean in comparison. How vulgar the West, compared to the pure and transcendent animism of the Orient. But perhaps all religion is but a masque of the ego. Pretense. Hope. If Christianity is the most deceptive masque, then it is the truest of hopes thereby. It reveals human nature in all it's most pitiful deformity.
Zitkala-Sa, Sioux
I see it all, but I go not thither. For me, the only leap I've been wiilling to take is the into the Sabbath. There is no iron in my words. No charm in my thought. No beauty, and no personal power. In my book Altered States, the second half is about "The State of the Holy." I assure you, the old Hebrew concept is sovereign. It is unique in the world. My mind has leaped there. Whatever triumphs and tragedies await the human heart, whatever ecstacies and agonies are involved in human experience, I cannot manage them. I can only pass through them. I know I want eternity. So far, it is only a promise. Animism, spiritism, shamanism, and the supernatural, to this date, have not convinced me. Though I seem genetically programmed to be there, I look away.
One can't get lost in the forest if one knows the Creator. The lure of lust and beauty are not so triumphant as the call of Sinai. With sabbath, I've always felt I was heading out of the woods. It is...faith.
Far from the endless miseries of American politics, and the slavish compulsions of fabricated racial equality, we turn to the wilds of western Mongolia to find true freedom.
The Kazakhs hunt with the eagles!
In the Bayan Ulgii regions of western Mongolia, even today, proud hunters use the giant golden eagle as Medieval European aristocrats used the falcon to hunt pheasant.
From the cover of Stephen J. Bodio's Eagle Dreams (2003)
Actually, the Kazakhs are Asian, but not nationally Mongolian, not originally. They were pushed into western Mongolia when Russian (Moscovite) aggressions drove eastward--some two hundred years ago. Russian domination become more pronounced with industrialization. At the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan contained a population of 54% Russian (Moscovite). The first president of the independent Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazirbyaev, called for all Kazakhs outside the new country to return there. More than half of the Kazakhs living in Mongolia decided to make the move. The Kazakh ethnicity was greatly strengthened by the accession of many of the keepers of flame of Kazakh culture. The Kazakhs had remained more or less separate and isolated from Mongolian society proper.
Kazakhstan, in green. Mongolia is to the east. Kazakhs are a "Turkic" people,
from the Turkish-Arabic word meaning free, independent. The Russians (Moscovites)
called them the more familiar name, Kossaks. There borders have alwyas been
fluid, since they were simply another nomadic people of the great Asian Steps.
Eagle hunting, however, is probably Mongolian. Some contend that the actual practice of hunting via bird-of-prey is practically prehistoric, dating to 6000 years ago in Asia. (By Asia, we mean the Steps, not the jungles.) Records show that Kubula Khan brought 'falconry' to Europe in the 13th century. The Khans, of course, were Mongolian.
But the Kazakh neighbors obviously picked it somewhere along the way. The golden eagles they use today are quite huge, and they perfer the female, because she is a third larger than the male, and hunts much more aggressively. (Sounds like a female lion, eh? At least on the hunting part.) Her wings can spread up to eight feet. She can weigh nearly 15 pounds. With eyes eight times more 'telescopic' than human, an eagle can see a fox or rabbit a mile a way.
Falconry, the use of the small falcon to hunt, became a fine art in Europe, of course. But is was always a luxury of the court. Here, today, in western Mongolia, the Kazakhs--among the most simple people of the world, they use eagles! It is pure sport. Fine hunting for hunting's sake. No social status involved.
I'd say the eagle says it all.
Information and photos in this Journal entry taken from Mongolia Today, an article by BlueWolf Tourism. Also recommended: Eagle Dreams: Searching for Legends in Wild Mongolia, by Stephen J. Bodio (2003).
Radio Host Sean Hannity
Today (March 26, 2008) on Sean Hannity's radio show, Hannity played Pastor James D. Manning's YouTube sermon against Barrak Hussein Obama, and had Pastor Manning on as a guest. Manning is finally making it to the big time. BadEagle.com didn't post the sermon until Sunday, March 23. We received notice of the clip from email notice, Friday, March 21. No doubt, Manning will find more of a voice in media.
The Rev. Dr. James D. Manning, of the Atlah
World Missionary Church, 38 West 123rd
Street, ATLAH, New York 10027
Tel: (212) 427-2839
Toll Free: (877) 777-0734
But Hannity did not like Manning's voice. Hannity spent the entire interview condemning Manning for his words against Obama. No, Hannity is not for Obama in any way, but, Hannity was ostensibly "hurt" by Mannings words. Manning said Obama was a pimp, and a Mac-Daddy. Manning said he didn't trash Obama, but that Obama was born trash. Manning called Obama's father a 'African in heat' who went "a whoring after a white trash woman." Hannity was deeply troubled, as the Democrats say. Hurt, offended, repulsed. He didn't want to hear anything Manning had to say, really. He wanted to rebuke the black pastor for using such "hurtful" language. He judged the pastor as unchristian, hateful, and in great error for using such language. Hannity invoked "Christian" values, and could not accept that another Christian would talk this way about another man. He interrupted Manning every time Manning tried to put his words and sermon in context.
In short, Hannity acted like a liberal. Hannity acted like a white-collar liberal, a wimp, afraid to use words that "hurt." Like, all the problems in the world can be solved as long as we don't "hurt" anyone with negative words--which, of course, implies that no one is doing anything hurtful out there. I was not completely surprised, though. The average white person is hearing typical black preaching for the first time, now that Obama's Pastor Wright has been presented to the media, and now that Pastor Manning is on the media stage. Hannity obviously hasn't heard any black preaching before.
I myself was not surprised or "shocked" by either Wright or Manning. I attended a black Seventh-day Adventist church for four years when I was in school. Now, I never heard political issues preached about, nor heard any such language, but, the screaming style, yes. I grew quite accustomed to that. It is style, nothing else. So, I should consider what people feel like when they hear this style for the first time. The hysteria, the screaming, is not "hate." It is style of delivery. Naive white boys in the media think the emotion is "hate." You scream when you're mad, when you're going to take action, when you're infuriated. Black preachers scream when they're preaching. That's all. Typically. The social context of the black preacher is the missing factor here. White people in media apparently know nothing of this.
But, Hannity was manoeuvering. He wanted to show that, though he is conservative, though he has no affinity with Obama's ideas, Hannity would never "trash" Obama personally by saying his mother was white trash. Hannity's conservatism is above street level talk, or whatever kind of talk he thinks Manning was talking. Hannity showed more ignorance than substance. His substance was simply liberal talk. He used liberal rules--the very rules that have gotten America in the impossible social fixes it is in--when he talked to Manning. Moreover, Hannity invoked Christianity as his authority to do so! Thus, Hannity gave liberalism's "political correctness" the blessing of Christianity. Upside down irony it was.
I think it was a major revelation, not of Manning, but of Hannity. Hannity's a good man, and a good guy. I don't think anyone questions that. But, in his white glove approach, in his dominant rebuke of his guest, Hannity showed that, at least as a radio host, and probably in his personal life, he really doesn't go for the language Manning used. Hannity accused Manning of racism, openly. I'm saying this is the liberal definition of racism--names.
I grew up in Oklahoma. Red Man country, home of the "red necks," I suppose. I've heard name calling all my life. I grew up being called names. My brothers and I became artists at it, practicing on one another. It was part of life, to be able to call someone a name, if it was appropriate and profitable. I personally do not have the reaction of "hurt" when I am called a name. Frankly, it reminds me of home. In other words, it was only fun. It was sport. Just something brothers do. It wasn't a serious thing.
Pimp, white trash, Mac-Daddy, whatever. These are sporting names. These are sociological stereotypes. All stereotypes have a basis in reality of some kind. They don't come from the sky. They don't fall out of trees. They are born in the human perception, sprouted on the human tongue. Sure, there are different levels of development. There are different dimensions of reality. But names are all we have. Adam was called upon to name every living thing. (Genesis 2:19.)
There are sinful realities here on this earth now. There are goings on that are despicable. There are men that use women to make money. We call such a man a pimp, or a whore-master. Is there a better name for this? Is "sinner" more respectful. Ah, but liberals would denounce that as "biblical" or "prejudicial." Mustn't say anything anyone is doing is bad, negative, or harmful. That would be "hurtful." So, everybody's fine, happy, and there are no problems.
Well, Pastor Manning's words mean much to many people. His hope, of course, is that they mean something to black people. He tried to tell Hannity that. But Hannity just wasn't tuned in to Manning. He was turn offed by the words in Manning's sermon, and had no ear for anything Manning had to say.
Here's the latest example of what Manning was talking about: Obama Girl II. Room for everyone, apparently. Politics is about entertainment. Hannity wants to criticize black preaching style?!
What is "Russian?" What is the ethnos, the specific ethnicity? Equally important, what it the ethos, the essence of the nature or character? What makes a Russian different from, say, a Frenchman? Are these answerable questions?
I ask only because I want to know how it is that something like Communism could find such a profound following in a place like Russia, and more importantly, why Russia under Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) was willing to commit genocide on its own people, or people whom it claimed as its own. In short, why do Communist regimes so willingly liquidate masses of their own population? At least Hitler's regime ended with him having the reputation of trying to eliminate races other than Aryan, other than German (along with a lot of other "undesirables"). But Communist regimes slaughter their own, in a most brutal manner. Look at Mao Tse Dung and China, Pol Pot and Cambodia, Kim Il Sung and North Korea, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. It is the same horrific phenomenon. The disarming, the disenfranchisement, the alienation, and the final elimination of hordes of human beings--is characteristic of every Communist regime in history, at one stage or another, (ususally in the beginning.). How can this be? How are people led to do this to their own kind? It has been estimated that 20 million people of Russia were eliminated during the initial stages of the establishment. Stephane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners (1997) is based on the thesis that the Nazi regime could in no way have preformed its offenses without the understanding and cooperation of the masses. Is this true? If it is, then surely the same can be said of the ghastly outrages of the Communist regimes.
Well all know the essential force of the Russian national identity has been the Moscovites, or, those people nearest Europe. Western Russia made "Russia." The days of what later become the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics came to house at least 160 different ethnicities, speaking more than 100 languages. What kind of "country" is this? It is not a country. It is a coerced political union. Since the Reagan Administration (1991) we have seen numerous ethnicities gain independence from "Russia," such as Georgia, Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, Armenia, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and many others. This has been cause of great concern for some time. If "Russia" were reduced to the Slavic routes, it would be simply another Eastern European country--'Moscavia.' Maybe that should happen.
Joseph Stalin, 1878-1953.
Today, Russia strongly identifies with Serbia, for instance. This is the Slavic connection. Serbia suffers the alienating influence of the Mohammadans (Muslims) from Albania. The Serbian province of Kosovo, so significant to Serbia, has recently declared itself "independent." Russia alone stood behind Serbian against this declaration. (The United States, due to Bill Clinton's traitorous precedents, has supported the independence of Kosovo.) The Slavic nations of "the Balkans" comprise eastern Europe. Yugoslavia (1946) was an attempt to unite several different Slavic "ethnicities" under an impromptu sort of Communism that Tito was working on. This did not last, and the Slavic ethnicities of Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Vojvadena, etc., have been breaking away one by one. Even Macedonia has been affected by the Mohammadan interference. The nationality of Greece is disturbed on this account.
Communism is apparently an attempt to coerce people into a political union of which they really don't want a part--no mater what their similarities. Coercion is the key word there. The tempting concept of material equality (Marxism), the collective ownership of the land and the government, has again and again proven nothing but a lie. All that happens is that masses of people are made poorer (when not slaughtered or starved), and fewer and fewer people have more and more power. This is horrible.
It so happens that this coming May 17, in Hartford, CT, the Ukrainian people are holding the 75 anniversary of their holocaust. The call it The Holodomor. In 1933-34, Stalin's Communist "Russia" created a famine that eliminated some 10 million "Russian" people. Well, they weren't Russian were they. They were a different ethnic group that came under the Iron Curtain. I know a elderly Ukranian immigrant who told me, "The Russians made Hitler look like only a bad boy." So satanic were the Russians to the Ukraines.
We can conclude that, in a Communist regime, the coercion is controlled by the ethnicity that makes the first deadly moves for power. All the other similar or related ethnicities are too late to resist. Those that do are eliminated. There were simply unprepared. They were not ready to face the force of the initial impetus of the controlling group.
Mao Tse Tung, 1983-1976
The same can be said of China. Mao Tse Tung was completely influenced by the Russian revolution, and set out to do the same. China was another one of those huge land masses, with some semblemce of similarity between major different provinces. They spoke basically the same languages, but they were different states, really. Mao started out as leader of a small but ambitious group in the mountainous regions of Jiangxi. From there Mao established himself as a bloody, murderous, torturous demon. He had the initiative of raw violence behind him, and took the surrounding regions by surprise. They were unprepared. He dominated. This began in the early 1930's. By 1949, he had ascended to control over all China. It was through terrorism of a forgotten hue. Red terrorism, they called it.
It is a kind of racial pride gone horribly awry. Language and religion were similar, as among the Slavs. General geographic area seemed opportune. One ethnic groups rises up to control all other similar groups, and behold, a Communist "country" is created. There are 56 ethnic groups in China, the Hans comprising the vast, dominant group. The "minorities" are spread out all over, but the greatest concentrations are in the southwest.
One can observe that geography and topography have much to do with nationhood. The location of a particular ethnicity is a paramount consideration if it has dominance propensities. The rise to political power, through brutal force, is really a kind of opportunism. The leader of such a group simply has the talent to see certain opportunities. Numbers, technology, allies, language, natural boundaries like rivers and mountains, proximity of fertile land, etc., all these are contributing factors for a rising killer.
Why does a Communist regime slaughter its own? Probably for the same reasons brothers sometimes fight. Pride, dominance, the usual suspects. Power is bigger than brotherhood. But, power must bring together diversity. Sometimes ideology works, or eases the process, as it has in America. But, in most of history, with the exception of the Persian Empire (Achaemenid era, 559-330 BC), empires are build on absolute coercion without honor of diversity. This lasts as long as those in power have the power to keep it. Eventually, the individual "brothers" of the empire prefer their own room. In time, the empire always dissolves--only to see some power-crazed individual attempt to build it again later.
What we see in the world right now is a remarkable financial empire looming. It's about business, and money. That means everyone will be able to maintain their happy state of individuality, while the big brothers sit around and play poker with the economy of the world. A spade's always a spade. A heart's always a heart. Everyone will be just fine.
Do you believe it? Why, no one will be forced to change. No one will give up their precious identity, or their ethnicity.
But, even now, in the United States of America, this is proven a lie. "Press 1 for English." This we hear, because of business, labor, and markets. Everyone's fine, sure. It'll all work out just fine. Barak Hussein Obama fits so well. We need to bring those murderous Mohammadans into the fold of global business. We've already made foot baths for them at the airports and in our public schools. We're making wonderful progress. No one will have to change.
That sort of kills Obama's message, huh?
Ah, but it's America that has to change. No one else. Not China. Not Russia. Not Africa. Not Mexico. Only White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America.
It is Easter morning, Sunday, March 23, 2008. To millions of Christians around the world, this is a wondrous day. This is the morning the 'community' of the church around the world celebrates the resurrection of Jesus who is called the Christ. (Note, we say his name in an Anglicized Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, Jehoshua, or Jeshua. That would be Iesous, then Jesus. Christ, of course, is Greek, xristos, meaning "anoint-ed," as mashach in Hebrew, or, messiah.) Quite the universal figure, this Jesus who is called Christ.
He is an archetype, in the Carl Jung (1875-1961) world view. Jung wrote:
The Self is a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere...And do you know what the Self is for Western Man? It is Christ, for Christ is the archetype of the hero, representing man's highest aspiration. All this is very mysterious and at times frightening.
(Quoted in Miguel Serrano, C. G. Jung and Hermann Hesse: A Record of Two Friendships, 1965, p.56.) Frightening indeed, the more, if one remembers that Jesus was Jewish, and the story comes forth from the heart of first century Jewish culture.
Certainly, in the Roman Catholic way, every religious archetype known to man has been brought in the "circle" of Christ. The thought is that, somehow, because all archetypes can be seen as reflecting the one giant Christ, therefore Christ is superior, and the truer truth, as it were.
Be all that as it may, I for one have never subscribed to cultural Christianity. It was not part of my formal upbringing as a Seventh-Day Adventist, and certainly the Adventist church has never been particularly respectful of cultural refinement. More like old Puritans, there has always been a tacit disdain for "worldy" manifestations of fine art, or, as the European world would call it, religious iconography.
But I think my lack of cultural Christianity is also connected to a profound Comanche intuition. While I realize that most Comanches today are formally Christian, attend church, etc., I speak rather of the old days. The days of freedom on the plains. I find no formal method of reality jousting there. I find no "religion" to speak of. Ceremony, community celebration, as a whole, was absent. The Comanche intuition had dispensed with all things superfluous to practical reality. Formal religion was a waste of time. Whatever did not directly contribute to the strait arrow, and the fallen game, was useless.
I consider this a profound advancement of human nature, psychologically. Formality is sometimes more of an inhibition than a harness.
Now, ironically, I have been through my formal education steeped in European culture and thought. Even the American version of freedom is, to me, quite European. Adventism, the supreme eclecticism of all Renaissance and Reformation expurgations of formality, remains, to me, a mere practical phenomenon. An organization. A community.
To wit, I can't say I find enlightment in Christian holidays, beautiful as they are, powerful as they are--socially embodying the accumulated Collective Conscious (and Unconscious) of millenia. I feel the spirit, so to speak, but it does not speak, in fact, to me personally. Perhaps I am simply solipsistic about this. A pragmatist, as it were.
But I hasten to add, there is no New Testement injuction to celebrate any holiday but the Sabbath--and this is mostly implicit, since it was part and parcel of the faith, ancient Jewish or the new Jewish faith--Christianity. The culture trappings of the new faith were added on with a fury, certainly. With almost immediate fervor, the new faith was dressed in all the finest clothes the world had to offer. Christ was draped with the richest robes on earth. (A little late, you might say, seeing he was stripped of all he had while here.) But this is "religion." This is custom. This is culture. This is not faith. This is not spirituality. This is, not doubt, weakness. This is dependency. This is falling back into mother's arms. This is being held, coddled, and cooed. Of course, it is irresistable.
It's just not Scriptural. I wouldn't say it was sin, because weakness is not sin, but, I just don't have the genes to go there. I have the aesthetic, but not the spirit for it. I certainly would encourage anyone to find faith, to find peace, to find the love of God. I would never want to confuse or inhibit anyone, or interfere with his sense of spirituality. I can only say the same for myself. I search to find my own. Some things interfere, some things seem to allow more of the real thing, or at least what feels more like the real thing, to me.
Christ is my "hero," certainly. But Christian holidays just seem a bit much. They are for people, not for Christ. They benefit the communal experience, and that is indeed a Christian entity. Brotherhood is to be prized, indeed. It is the hope of peace. However, functionally, it is only the door to truth. Truth doesn't necessarily bring us peace, but it sets us free. Freedom and peace are not necessarily partners. Or, perhaps we need to re-define peace, at least in the spiritual realm.
This is a problem. The church seems to think peace means absense of conflict, or political quietude. This is a perpetual frustration. Freedom and truth is what real Christianity is about. Insofar as these are applicable or attainable in this world, so be it. But, it is a shame to Christ to believe that the faith is used as a political tool to adovate the dissolution of race, nationhood, and gender. This is Communism, not Christianity. (I have said for some time, Communism, or Liberalism, is the Christless Christianity.)
So, I wish everyone a wondrous Christian holiday, regardless of the pagan origins of Easter, etc. I know Christians are blissfully unconscious of all that. Today is the day to share, as a community of believers, the unspeakable joy and awe that comes with faith in the risen Lord.
We know Obama's main message is that America is bad. But there's something worse in that message for Indians.
Barak Hussein Obama is anti-Indian.
American Indians are nothing to him. Indians don't even exist. So absorbed is he with his own blackness, and the black experience, the American black story--exaggerant as it is, he cannot conceive of other races. Any mention he may rarely make in reference to the existence of other "minority" groups is completely subsumed and utterly negated by an opening statement in his soon to be infamous "race" speech, delivered March 18, 2008, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia. It was the word of a crippled mind, the expression of profound dependency.
Condemning the Declaration of Independence as "incomplete" in that it did not address black slavery, Obama called black slavery America's "original sin."
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery...
Here we have error on all sides. Let's begin at the beginning, but we'll save the first error--ignoring the American Indian--until last. Let's begin with the idea of slavery.
1). White slavery was the first slavery in the colonies that became the United States. English, Irish, and Scotsmen were the first slaves. And, as indentured servants, many if not most of them suffered worse denigration than the African slaves--which were all "private property."
Barak Hussein Obama's regard for the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is clearly alien, divisive, disrespectful, and just plain ignorant. That he should have risen to the level of political prominence he currently enjoys only reflects the same conditions in the American public--itself suffering from a programmed, mechanical view of expectation. "I've been wronged." "I deserve more." This is the polluted soul of the American people, "tainted" indeed by the original sin of self-exaltation. It is the Satanic take of reality. It is the heart of liberation theology.
2) Slavery is not a "sin." By the use of the word "sin," Obama inevitably invokes the Bible and all historical authority connotated thereby, and implies that the Bible condemns slavery as sin. This is a lie. The Bible does not condemn slavery as sin. Indeed, the very Decalogue itself incorporates an acknowledgment of its existence. In the 4th Commandment, work is forbidden on the sabbath--work by both "thy manservant" and "thy manservant." In the 10th Commandment, covetousness is forbidden--regarding thy neighbor's "manservant," and his maidservant." See, Exodus 20: 10, 17.
Slavery was the first labor management system in the early civilizations. It was often no more than a live-in hired help circumstance. It was a job with benifits, in a very real way. Yes, there were larger, group labor forces, and there was some chattel slavery--in part due to the absense of any serious prison system. (By the way, chattel slavery is still permitted--as punishment for felons--by the U.S. Constitution. Read the 13th Amendment.) Now, abuse of the slave, the servant, or the employee, as it were, is a different matter. If there is sin, the sin is in abusing another human being, employee or even the child in a family. Abusing the weak, the helpless, the subservient--that is the sin. Slavery is simply not condemned as sin in the Bible. It was a socio-economic logistic, a mechanism of survival and progress.
Slavery has been dramatized by American blacks--who confuse their self-dissatisfaction with abuse by whites. They feel they have a moral advantage by claiming to be the supreme victims of abuse. Their discontent with their own skin and appearance (or whatever) they transform into a moral complaint against white people. They blame white people for being black. "Slavery" is only the excuse, the door, the opportunity. They don't like being black--at least not around whites. Black theology is the religion of envy. Black theology is the articulation of discontent. Black theology is protest against being black.
But now, back to America's "original sin." This, of course, is a "catholic" term, and Obama is obviously not a theologian by any means. That kind of complexity is beyond his 'expertise.' But it sounds good. It sound literal. He means nothing theological, but chronological. The first thing America did wrong, the initial fault in her 'coming into being,' the primal scream--was black slavery, according to Barak Hussein Obama. Ah, the lure of criticizing America--how grand it feels, how glorious and superior it makes the critic feel. How superior. How puffed up.
And, in this case, how utterly erroneous. If there was anything evil (sinful) in America's birth, it was the coerced displacement of American Indians. It was the presumptive accession of life, liberty, and property which belonged to others. But Obama can't conceive of that. That obvious and overwhelming truth would knock blackness out of first place in the line of lamentations. The Indian makes the black man nearly insignificant in victimhood. A black leader certainly can't tolerate that! He can't allow himself to be displaced by the bloody savage.
Yet the Declaration of Indpendence, that document Obama most arrogantly condemns, clearly acknowledges the "merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare is undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes, and conditions," and the Declaration accuses King George of England of stirring up the "savages" against the colonists.
Well, that's about as blind-sided as Obama's talk, in that both the Declaration and Obama utterly ignore the Indian point of view. In fact, there is an educational film published by Educational Video Network called "The Buffalo Soliders" in which black soldiers are made, and I quote, "just like everybody else" (i.e., white) by virture of fighting against--I should say--robbing by force--American Indinans. Nothing makes a black man feel more white than fighting Indians. So much for black brotherhood with other people of color. (Oh, well, for that matter, there were Indians that fought against other Indians. After all, we were separate nations. We never considered ourselves a "race." That's a white man's concept--one that black people conveniently, perhaps unavoidably, buy into.)
"Just like everybody else"--meaning, white, a
wonderous social acheivement--won by fighting Indians.
Obama cannot make place for the truth about Indians. It would kill his argument. It would upstage his black-centrist approach. Black people wouldn't be "first" in defraudation anymore.
I hope Indians can see this. By his own words, Obama has shown that his main concern is blackness. He is not a unifier at all. That is a most hideous deception. His speech was one of the most false, miscontrued, mistaken, and biased, prejudiced, nasty racist rants ever recorded. I reference but the first two paragraphs!
No, I didn't expect anything different. In fact, I believe in black pride. I just like to see some of it. Black liberation theology is the worst slavery conceivable. Blind prejudice, as manifest in the very opening of Obama's speech--which denies the existence of American Indians, is a skewed view of the world, and not one that any Americans can afford to have in a position of national leadership. It would be a terrible, irreparable mistake. Let's not put an indulgence of some vague sense of sociological atonement for black "slavery" above common sense, and the truth about Obama's view. Let's not exchange self-righteous penance for national political expedience. We don't need a blind man, who professes to see, in leading the blind, lest we all fall into the ditch.
It's all about race, again. I have not heard the speech of Barak Hussein Obama about race. He hasn't given it yet. But I already know what he's going to say. He's going to 'equalize' all things. Everyone is basically black. And blacks are like everyone else--meaning they are white. Everyone is the same. Then he will shift over into defense. He will justify the black complaint.
It will only be another example of the psychological greed of the black race. They think they own race, and all things racial. They are the king of race. Barak Hussein Obama will do nothing but exalt the Negro, and equalize all other races into blackness. In one way or another, he will identify with any and all social complaints in the world, and picture the black race as the epitome of discontent, and will encourage every plainiff in the world to identify with the black race.
It is a very weak, slavish approach to racial reality, and a hackneyed attempt to change the leapard's spots.
The apparent truth is that black people are inevitably uncomfortable around white people. That's all it is. And they believe they are superior to all other persons of color. They think they are the guide for all other non-white people.
And they think they are arbiter of thought and principle when it comes to talking about race. This is the history of black thought in America.
This is a hideous presumption, but one that the American Negro has adopted for two centuries. He is encouraged in this presumption by white people who simply do not understand their own conscience, nor their own history, nor their own place in the world.
Barak Hussein Obama will invite everyone to share the black view, and they will discover that, yes, they feel like black people feel! It will be a grand love fest, based on pity, erroneous association, and perverted empathy. It will be a psychological Houdini, whereby the world will become Negro.
There's nothing else for the man to say. However brilliantly he says it, it's the same message. The same desire. He's still trying to change the leopard's spots. It's still the Ethiopian trying to change his skin. And yes, it's still those accustomed to do evil trying to do good instead. (Jeremiah 13:23)
Obama is trying to become president of the United States. He has to have a unifying perspective. He has to get people to vote for him. He has to be heroic. He has to have the hearts of the people. But all he has to offer is self-pity. He can only appeal to the pity of the people. He is simply trying to remove any reason from the minds of people who don't want to vote for him. Whatever makes you not want to vote for him, he must remove. He wants you to be black, like him, essentially.
I don't know when his speech will be delivered to day. I don't really care. I don't take my cues from black people. I am not instructed in race thoughts by black people. I do not look to black people as a source of truth or example. They are not my heroes, nor do I wish to follow in any of their approaches to the world. They are not my guide.
It is as simple as that. I will not be deceived by allegories, metaphors, associations, or pity. I did not create the black race. I am not responsible for whatever challenges they face. If a black man can only relate to me as a black man, than I shall find it very difficult to relate to him as anything other than a black man. If the black experience is unique, then he is alone, appart from me, in any case. If the black experience is "just like anybody else's" (--their favorite line), then I denounce that as a deception. They can't have it both ways, yet, that is all there is for them to do--is to try to have it both ways. They want everyone to think they are just like everybody else, yet, they also want everyone to think they have been mistreated more than anyone else, and that they are owed more than anyone else. They want it all. That's what I mean by black greed. Psychological greed.
I cannot help them if they feel they are unwanted, un-beautiful, or uncomfortable. This is not within my power. Why lie to them? Why respond to their inferiority? Why pretend? That is only a manipulation. They want to control you. That's all that's happening. They want to be "massa." They want you to be the slave now, and they want to rule over you.
But then they don't know what to do with you after they get you. They think they need your vote, but that's only greed. I don't think it is inferiority any more. I used to think that. But, no. It is a desire to control someone else. It is a kind of fear--subservience flipped over into slave driving. They think they'll feel better, safer, more secure, if they're in charge of you. But, as dramatized in "X," the movie about Malcom X, even when the white woman kisses the feet of Malcom, it still doesn't make him feel any better about himself. He doesn't change his skin.
I will listen to Obama's speech when it is available. It could be going on now, while I write. This happens to be a busy day for me. I have oither responsibilities that are more important than listening to a black man justify himself. Indeed, everybody does that. He's just like everyone else. True. Only he has a pity factor in his favor. He can give everyone an opportunity to vote for him, and feel better about themselves. They can be righteous by voting for him. Not the kind of feeling or reighteousness that means anything to me.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, famous for assisting suicides amongst elderly and terminal patients, has announced that he is running for Congress. Will he end the Death Tax?! Will he advocate term limits?! Will he assist certain congressmen in limiting their terms?! (Will he sit next to Ted Kennedy? Can you hear it? "Ted, let me assist you!") We know death comes out of Congress, in many forms. Can death go into Congress? That's the new question!
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, 79.
The Michigan resident felon, convicted of 2nd degree murder, is now 79 years old. He was paroled on June 1, 2007. (He'll be 80 this May.) Kevorkian must collect 3,000 signatures (on nominating petitions) by July 17, to get on the November ballot. He resides in Oakland County. Well, if the dead can vote (as they have of late, among the Democrats), I'm sure Thomas Youk would vote for Kevorkian. Youk's assisted and televised death is what put Kevorkian in prison.
In Michigan, a felon can vote again as soon as he is paroled. But, while in prison, wouldn't it have been interesting if Kevorkian had set up an 'assistance' shop in house?! Think of all the non-paroled, who will die in prison. I wonder how many would like to have availed themselves of Kevorkian's services. Ah, but the state would never allow such competition. The state handles all the needles in prison. Well, most of them. Okay. Some of them. Actually, none. Michigan doesn't have the death penalty right now. Poor Kevorkian. Poor permanent inmates!
So, the state with the death penalty can "assist" in terminating a person, but that's okay. When a person actually wants to die, a private physician cannot assist. So, is the difference the will of the patient/prisoner person? If you don't want to die, the state can kill you with impugnity. If you do want to die, no one can help you. No one wants to help you.
George Soros
Except George Soros. He wants you to die--espeically if it's too expensive to keep you living. You should be allowed to just die, whether you want to or not. The Hungarian multi-billionaire had the famous Project Death, in which he funded vast research for creating programs to basically let people die "with dignity." No prolonging the agony, no critically expensive life support systems. Just let people die. For now, the Project died (2003). But the deadly research lives. And Soros is quite liberal on the use of drugs--for any use. We can't imagine that he would not support Dr. Death and lethal injections. Soros certainly believes in death:
Soros has attributed his interest in this issue to his late father. In an interview with the New Yorker (January 23, 1995), Soros recounted his father's battle with cancer and voiced disapproval at the senior Soros's unwillingness to die. According to Soros, his father "...unfortunately wanted to live... I was kind of disappointed in him ... I wrote him off." George Soros's promotion of death can also be traced to his mother, who as a member of the Hemlock Society (a pro suicide organisation committed suicide.
Soros supports euthanasia, of course, and physician assisted suicide. He in a crazy sort of way, he wants death to be eliminated--that is, the suffering and prolonged process of dying.
Few people realize it just yet, but his idea is part and parcel to Hillary Clinton's communist healthcare proprosal. Under Hillary's plan, there will be less medical treatment for more people. There simply will be no money for prolonged, helpless lives. Hillary's program just happens to be the actualization of the Soros vision. And, certainly, Soros has been an avid supporter of the Clintons--since 1995. Soros has bought his way into American politics, with far Left values. Though Hillary idolized radical communist Saul Alinksy, Soros has surely taken his place now.
Hillary Clinton, Communist,
early Death advocate
What we have here is a lethal Triumvirate: Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian, George Soros, and Hillary Clinton. They believe in death should be cheap. Quick, easy, and cheap.
It could be that Soros is waiting for the Obama campaign to run itself down, then he will inject millions into the Hillary campaign. Surely, Soros can pitch in a few million to Dr. Death's campaign for congress. How could he resist such a gesture?
One slight problem. Hillary has been a long time advocate of the death penalty. Now, most liberals are hysterically against the death penalty. They love to see human life tortured by criminals on the loose. But Hillary believes in the death penalty. Is this an anomaly? It certainly fits in with the Lethal Triumvirate policy. But, the death penalty has always been associated with conservative principles. This is indeed a strange coincidence of politics.
Conservatives see the death penalty as punishment, in direct association with morality, and the health of society. But some high ranking liberals apparently see it as just another way to reduce the population, like abortion itself. Death is a tool, that's all. If it makes things better for the sacred "commune," then let there be more of it. But, how then can liberals be against war?
I think it is because all they really want is power--power over you. They want to be the ones who decide whether you live or die. War is out of their control. We might actually win a war, and make life better for all. So, they're against that. War doesn't give them control over anyone, although Bill and henchman Wesley Clark sure enjoyed bombing the Serbians in Kosovo. But that wasn't really war, that was more in the line of murder. And that was to protect the murderous Muslims from the Serbian nationalists. Liberals love Muslims, because Muslims murder many people.
In any case, beware the Lethal Triumverate! Dr. Kevorian, George Soros, and Hillary Clinton.
The first female vice-presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, spoke the truth about the Barak Hussein Obama campaign. She said that he is where he is because he is black. Why is she considered at fault for saying that? Is "Hussein" untouchable?
Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate apparent, has twice now condemned truthful reference to Barak Hussein Obama. He condemned conservative radio show host Bill Cunningham for simply saying Obama's name, "Hussein," and then he condemned Republican House Representative Steve King for pointing out that Muslims will be "dancing in the streets" if Barak Hussein Obama is elected.
Geraldine Ferraro
So, the Democrats can't point out truthful aspects of the Hussein Campaign, and the conservatives must be perfectly PC. So, who's dominating whom? Who's in control over whose words? For McCain, obviously, it's all about political manipulation, or "reaching across the aisle" to attract liberals. For Hillary, it's trying to avoid accusations and hypocrisy (like, she has a chance for that?).
But don't conservatives generally claim a corner on the truth and consistency? Watching the Democrats duke it out amongst themselves may provide top quality entertainment, but, if the truth comes out of their mouth are they not then the victors? They may have been hypocritical about the issues, but, if in the end, they are the ones that are found pronouncing the simple facts of the situation, the truth about race and gender, are they not superior on this point?
Ferraro, who ran on the Democrat ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate in 1984, pronounced some very obvious and simple facts about the Hussein Campaign:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position
And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept
These are not comments about his ideas, his values, or his personality. These are objective sociological observations. She's saying that his success is coincidental, that's all. His success is due to the historical context of his appearance on the stage. Of course, Ferraro could have said the same thing about Hillary, but it wouldn't be so true, since Ferraro herself was the first female candidate for the vice presidency.
Ferraro has said more.
I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
In other words, race trumps gender. Very true. (BadEagle.com's position all along in this campaign.) But this is all a tempest in a teapot. The media has always supported the Clintons. The media is simply having fun with Obama. (Remember, the purpose of the press is to sell stories, to make money.) I disagree with Ferraro on the "sexist" media bit, though. I don't see that at all. Of course, I've never been a woman running for office.
Ferraro has maintained and defended her statements, of course. No infamous liberal "apology." Instead, she divines:
Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?
So, apparently Republicans and conservatives are going to sit by and let the Democrats speak the truth, even it comes out only in a desparate attempt to focus in their own ranks, even if, and especially if, the truth weakens the Democrat Party. Well, well. How manipulative, yea, how cowardly, of the Conservatives. Rather than speak the truth, they will, for fear of being accused of racism, allow the females of their own white race to stand up and take the hit. That's real macho-ism, Repubs! That's real strength.
It's just the kind of manipulation that McCain loves, and operates on.
Personally, I've never been without a candidate before. I have always voted, and always with enthusiasm. Not having a candidate is a totally new experience for me. It does not feel good, I say. Maybe it's part of getting older. When you're young, you have nothing but enthusiam. You like supporting someone, getting caught up. Maybe part of the political fiasco we're all witnessing now is due to the fact that, not only are their more younger voters voting, but the older generation still carries the dope (dupery) of their younger years. Maybe I'm just one of those politically lost souls, who can't get enthusiastic anymore--for having seen too much, and known too much. It's like, How do you fall in love again? How do you be naive again? Philosopher Paul Ricoeure called it a "second naivete." The Symbolism of Evil (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967). Of course, this is a Catholic-style form of literary criticism Ricoeur presents, in an attempt to create a new perspective of great literature. It is a kind of forced phenomenology. Confessional, as it were. Yet, I see the second naivete as the only present path to political commitment. The options are disappointing and dire. One simply has to ignore much to commit to any candidate or party. It takes a "willing suspension of disbelief," the poetic mode identified by Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Biographia Literaria, 1817). Yes, today, one must live by poetry, or guilt--the misery of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
Ferraro is not wrong in what she said. But what will become of the Democrat Party? If, in the rues and throes of this present Democrat campaign, opponets end up casting aside all their PC rules and instead shout out the truth with abandon, the end result may be a new crop of seasoned conservatives. In other words, a large number of Democrats may come to see themselves as actually conservative, and tending greatly toward Republican positions after all.
Just what Republicans need, eh? More Democrats. Well, look at it this way: these new Democrats will be tried in the fire. They may be a better quality than anything Republican 'home-grown.' (I mean, look what that's produced for candidates!)
Eliot Spitzer is arrogant? The governor of New York is condemned for his attitude?
What about Bill Clinton? Because he is soft-spoken, with a tender boy's voice, he is innocent of a mean spirit? Bill Clinton abused every element of authority in the White House, but, he's not arrogant? He behaved like the over-grown adolescent he apparently is, playing sex games with virtual teenagers in the Oval Office, but he doesn't have an attitude problem?
New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, standing alongside wife Silda, said in a news conference,
"I have acted in way that violates my obligations to my family." Photo By Shannon
Stapleton, Reuters
Conservatives (and some liberal story mongers) are really pouring it on when they assess the person of Eliot Spitzer. They articulate the most careful evalutations of spiritual character when they attempt to do him in. But I think they're wrong on this one. Arrogance is not about character, but about emotional demeanor. Spitzer may be of a perfectly fine character--as good as any we see in politics, if not better. He blew it, yes, but, "arrogance?" Conservatives show a mistaken measure here.
But it's all part of the Clinton Cleansing. The fault or failure of any person, in any office, in any party, serves now only to dim the outrage so deserving of the Clintons.
This is disgusting about now. Media, of any type or persuasion, has shown itself aberrant and unreliable as a guide in anything spiritual or even moral. Yes, conservatives at least preach an enduring morality, but, "arrogance?" If Spitzer wasn't Democrat, such a spirit would be deemed positive energy, determination, devotion, and the power behind significant accomplishments.
That such a negative assessment of a man should become a public by-word does however indicate that the man has a significant personality! Sure, the Emperor's Club (a whore house) was a very bad thing for Spitzer to ever come near, but, let's not confuse that with "arrogance." Nobody has ever tried to get by--and got by--with more foul play than Bill Clinton (and accomplice Hillary Clinton). Spitzer has an intense personality, but not a perverted one. He is not preoccupied with deviance, like the Clintons. It has not been a life-long career as it has with them.
Spitzer, like any man, can be tempted, for any number of reasons. Spitzer, like any man, can fall. Until we know a lot more about him, I think it is a big mistake to dump him completely. It is certainly inconsistent. As long as the Clintons are allowed to show their faces in public, much less allowed to run for office, there is no honor in demonizing Eliot Spitzer.
Maybe he should resign. But, Bill Clinton didn't. Hillary Clinton hasn't. Have they established such "arrogance" in peversion and self-justification that no one is now required to even think of resigning? Like, resigning would be a sign of weakness and self-dishonor?!
This is the state of affairs the Clintons have established in American public life. They have cursed America beyond what most people can comprehend. Spitzer's fall is a drop in the bucket. Yes, he was very aggressive about government reforms and ethics, and for him to make an error of this kind is most unfortunate. He disappointed himself, his family, and everyone else.
But, arrogance? Nah. The Clintons are arrogant. But they are being cleansed of all negative impressions, as the media picks up on the latest fall of some other person, and naively explores new depths of character criticism. After all, that's the real Clinton Legacy.
Ever thought about Jews in China? The Jews seem to have a long history just about everywhere in the world. But, do they have a history in China? Yes they certainly do.
Sidney Shapiro put together a fine collection of studies by Chinese scholars called Jews in Old China (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1984). But, no, the Jews in old China are not the Ashkenazim or the Saphardim with which the modern world is so familiar. (In other words, it wasn't Polish or Russian Jewish immigrants in New York that decided to open a business in Peking.) It was apparently Persian Jews, from the ancient days, who were apparently in China. These were Jews who had been taken captive by Assyria in 722 BC, and placed in Media (western Iran). They later migrated farther eastward to Masshad.
There is a Chinese term in records of the 13th century AD (1263) which means Jews, or Jewish people: wutuo. This, according to Hong Jun (1897). The wutuo are listed among Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, and other religious sects in China during the Yuan Dynasty (the Mogolian period). This written evidence is found in an Administrative Code, 29.
Chen Yuan (1920) tells us that Kaifeng had the largest Jewish community in old China. Kaifeng, on the central plain, was one of the seven ancient capitals. Yuan tells us that there is Chinese literature from the late 15h century about the history of the Hebrew people from Abraham. One such literary inscription speaks of a synagogue in Kaifeng in 1163 AD (the first year of Xiao Zong). These were still Persian-speaking Jews.
French Jesuits left us elaborate drawings of Jewish synagogues in in 18th century.
This is all fascinating, yet there is even more compelling evidence found in the written language of the Chinese. In fact, this evidence is Edenic in nature, or at least Noachan. That is to say, there is evidence from the earliest Chinese pictographs that first people inhabiting the region we call China knew of the Hebrew account of creation. This is according to the studies of Ethel R. Nelson, Richard E. Broadberry, C. H. Kang, et al. In a series of three small books, Nelson out lines the meaning of the earliest known Chinese pictographs on tortise shells. There are over 150,000 of these "oracle bone" specimens, some of which date from over 3,500 years ago. (The first dictionary attempting to account for their meanings was complied in 121 AD by Xu Shen, called the Shuo Wen. See: Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (Concordia, 1979); Mysteries Confucious Couldn't Solve (Read Books, 1986); God's Promise to the Chinese (Read Books, 1997).
Unfortunately, BadEagle.com cannot accommodate Chinese characters, but, perhaps a description of one will do. The Chinese hieroglyphic or pictograph for the English word "boat," involves at least three basic elements: a vessel, the number eight, and a human mouth (or, a person). There is the story of Noah. Another example is found in the word "create." In the Chinese word, the pictographs involve dust (mud), life (motion), and walking. Sounds like Adam's debut to me.
Now, the Chinese boast of the most consistent, basically unchanged language in the world, particularly the writing aspect of it. In the oracle bone evidence, Heaven was originally thought of as, not a place, but a person. A great, noble person was from above.
Imperial Vault of Heaven, Beijing. 1420 AD
Then there is the matter of the ancient Border Sacrifice. This ended with the disposing of the Manchus in 1911, but, it had continued from legendary period of China, even before the first dynasty of 2205 BC. It involved the scrifice of young bullocks to ShangDi, the Heavenly Emperor, the person above all. We know that Confucious acknowledged this Border Sacrifce, having written of in in the 6th century BC. Confucious, in Shu Jing (Book of HIstory) wrote of Emperor Shun (2230 BC), "he sacrificed to ShangDi."
In a sense, then, there were Jews in China a long time before the Mongolians--a long time before the 12th century. At least, there were people who knew the Hebrew story of Creation and of the Flood. Of course, the latest archeological findings but Caucasians in western China in 2000 BC. So, all the evidence seems to point in the direction that mankind early on distilled his Jungian archetypes. The story of the races is therefore more quixotic than ever, or else archetypes aren't so accurate so much as ubiquitous. Genesis 11 records the first significant phenomenological diversity: language. From that followed geographic/demographic diversity, then inevitably environmentally-affected elements, such as dietary diversity, and diversity in clothing and shelter. Racial diversity developed coetaneously in there somewhere, perhaps from Genesis 10 and the story of Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japeth.
A redhead from the TaklaMan Desert of China, ca. 2000 BC. Definitely
not Mongolian.
But an archetype that survives racial diversity, along with the other forms of diversity, is not then the truth itself, but only the red flag marking the truth. That the story of Genesis would be reflected in the "oracle bones" and the original Chinese letters, and still maintained in Chinese today, says something about not only the ubiguity of the archetype, but the certainty of the red flag.
Truth is, there are "Jews in China." It's like a magic phrase or something. Something one would say upon discovering some profundity in the world. Or something that would inspire you to search for the truth. "Hey, always remember! There are Jews in China!" Nobody's left out. Nothing is untouched. Nobody's missing.
I find this reassuring.
UPDATED: During the late 9th century revolts, Huang Ch'ao (d.884 AD) captured Canton (875 AD) and slaughtered there 120,000 foreigners (Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Persians) in cold blood. Dun J. Li, The Ageless Chinese (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p.175. Canton of course was a coastal port city, on the southernmost reagion of China. Nevertheless, as in Kaifeng, north-central China, the Jews of Canton in the 9th century AD were doubtless Persian Jews as well.
Has the American public forgotten the horrible affront of Hillary Clinton? The media apparantly has. For the sake of exciting news lines, hideous Hillary has been given a clean slate to run as a Democrat candidate for the presidency of the United States. It is as if she never had a stain on her. Even the conservative writers and radio hosts have joined the exciting campaign dynamic of forgetting, and have quietly set aside their former mountains of accusations. (Indeed, in January, BadEagle.com noted that she had reached a 'critical mass' in media. All that is said of her--even the most negative truths--contribute to her positive progress in acceptance.) It is as if she has become innocent before our eyes. Can this be a right course? Is this not dangerous?
Hillary Clinton
This is the woman who displayed a big black naked Negress ("Big Burtha") statue in the White House in 1993, a statue with steatopygia (enormous buttocks). This the woman who put dramatized pornographic ornaments on the White House Christmas tree in 1994, along with crack pipes on a string, all for a major statement about sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. That was the Clinton social value system. That's what they wanted to celebrate. It was the antithesis of Christian values. This is the woman who has been involved in perpetual scandal, either her own or Bill's, financial, sexual, legal, death, or other. So says Gary Aldrich, first White House FBI agent who ever asked for a transfer. (Unlimited Access, 1998). Aldrich chronicles the sordid events and affairs with stomach-turning authenticity.
So why has all this disappeared? It is certainly unpleasant, and the mind naturally avoids it, turning to more encouraging entertainment, like watching Hillary vie for power on speech-making abilities, such as they are. For whatever other reasons, it is though Horrible Hill has been reinstated as an honorable item. A woman. Politics is playing her like a fiddle. The public sees the whole process as having a lot more to do with them then will her. The political process in America is it's own machine. Once entering it, the player must tread carefully, indeed. But the machine really operates on inevitables, not variables. There is hard-core psychology going on here. It involves the good will of the human heart.
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter was written by Carson McCullers in 1940. I learned something about vicarious idendification when I was unwillingly exposed to McCullers. I was first introduced to this book by a biographer of McCullers named Virginia Spencer Carr. Ms. Carr was conducting a course in modern writing for Emory University. I was a graduate student at the time, so I enrolled in the course. My impression of Carson McCullers was unforgettably averse. She appeared to me to be a miserable, pitiful, and unwanted, suffering creature--morally as well as physically. It was a story of tragic perversion without the tragic tone. I was not politically articulate at the time, but I can see now McCullers as a classic liberal, as was her biographer, Ms. Carr. Every kind of affront to society McCullers could muster, she offered with robust intensity. Carr had lauded and validated this aberrant animus, it seemed to me. I was digusted. The whole story was perfectly vomitable.
Yet, I ended up learning one important lesson: biography can turn the despised into the cherished. It all depends on the point of view. Before Ms. Carr was done, I actually sensed a kind of real sympathy for Carson McCullers. It was inevitable, really. The human heart has a natural sympathy for another human being. It is vicarious identification. One imagines oneself to be the other person, what it would be like to feel what that other person is feeling. This takes no effort or forethought. This is natural.
Thus, Hillary Clinton escapes all censure.
The more attention she receives, the more pure she becomes. We're made to feel what she feels, see what she sees, and think like she thinks. It is the power of media--the mirror in our face. By beholding we become changed, as St. Paul said (2 Corinthians 3:18). It's true. We start becoming like the think we focus on--for better or for worse.
But we also forget what that thing is really like. We have all forgotten what Hillary really is and stands for. We are continually fed by media impressions--which apparently have been edited, purged, sanitized, and made offense-free. Hillary has reappeared on the seen as innocent as a young virgin, just trying to do good for America. Even her age is an element of self-cleansing. She is older, wiser, and more true, somehow.
This is phenomenal. This is indeed historical. That such psychological manipulation effect could be accomplished is astounding--having not been seen in the world since the days of Adolf Hitler. But, in his day, he created and controlled the machine. Now, today, it all evolves naturally.
Media is about advertisement even more than entertainment. Media is about a sell. Media is sell. Hillary is a sell for seasoned experience, that's all. Forget the past, the indescribable offense of the past. That's all over now. She can't possible err. Whatever it is, she's been there, done that. So, experience in sin apparently sells to sinners. This is a fearful prospect. But, we needn't worry any too much. After all, she's like a virgin now. And by beholding, we become changed.
Four years ago, a writer for the Asia Times was introduced to the BadEagle.com forums by one of our former posters, "MovingHand" (a modern German Jew). The Asian Times writer uses the pseudonym of "Spengler, after Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), the once famous German political philosopher. (Spengler the columnist has only last week been discovered by Rush Limbaugh.) Columnist Spengler is greatly appreciated by the Asian Times for some reason, and is making a big hit among many conservatives for his positions against a ill effects of "social democracy." Spengler has a web space called "The Complet Spengler" on AsianTimes Online.
Most recently, Spengler has taken to rather severe examination of Barak Hussein Obama. He believes that the principal women of Obama's life reveal his true disposition toward the world and toward America. "He hates America," writes Spengler. "No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife." Spengler thinks that Obama's mother identified with the Third World cultures she studied--those that were perishing. "Anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice."
Now, BadEagle.com has already drawn negative conclusions based on the simple and obvious circumstances of Obama's life. But Spengler seems to develope a more academic rhetoric about it. Whereas BadEagle.com pointed out that America was acting like a white teenaged girl about to be ravaged by a black man, Spengler says:
Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.
Interesting psychology. Then Spengler procedes to evaluate the role of Michelle LaVaughn Roberts Obama, Barak Hussein's wife. After siting the well-known information and disposition Michelle's negative attitude toward America and toward white people, Spengler says:
Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007.
Spengler sums up Michelle's influence:
Obama's choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk.
This is heavy. This is not an analysis of Obama's voting record, nor his campaign speeches. This addresses the person who would be president of the United States. Not that any human being is exempt from such inquiry or psychological analysis, nor that such is inevitably negative, but, not every human being is aspiring to be the leader of the greatest country in the world. Much is at risk, and therefore much is required such an aspirant.
Then Spengler returns to Obama's mother (Ann Dunham), and procedes to trace the Communist theme in her life and marriages. This is where it gets unnerving. We might always expect such a theme in anyone so "intimately" involved with the Third World Communist countries in the 1960's, certainly. But, Spengler presses the point.
Interestingly, Spengler says that "radical anti-Americanism," rather than Islam, is the matter of concern in Obama's personal formative years. This is an interesting point. Restating the anthropologist metaphor, Spengler says:
He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.
Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
It is a splendid article, and one which no doubt will find great acceptance in the anti-Obama crowd, which is growing.
Spengler is obviously very familiar with America, and may in fact be an American--hanging out in cognito. Who knows? Here's a care where all we really have is words to go on. We have no biography. We have only a pseudonym--of a German "conservative" of the past century. That's is surely an oddity of great interest. Thanks to the mania of Adolf Hitler, any inkling of German conservatism is associated with the Nazi regime. This is a most crippling prospect, both in communication and effectiveness.
Some years ago, at Nataly Synhaivsky's annual Aspen Composers Conference, I met a fine German artist and set designer, Jorg Madlener. We had many deep conversations about culture. It was a great privilege to be with such a refined person. He said things like, "We're still digesting the meaning of the Holocaust." He said that, looking at the ideological background that led up to it, "We may have to reconsider the culture that could generate such thing. That would include Beethoven, Goethe, Mozart, etc." Very serious conversations we had in 1998, I believe it was. (I note that one of his paintings has been been hiested in Apsen.) Apsen is religiously liberal, and the paper that gave notice of Madlener's missing painting features a top headline feature add supporting Obama. There's a real irony of freedom.
But a true, genuine, honest, conscience-clear conservative German. Is there such an item? Is this the aspiration of he who writes under the name "Spengler"?
Is it true? Did Hitler say it? Do the weak rise to the top in a democracy, and do they eventually destroy it, as an inevitable social process?
Hermann Rauschning wrote a memoir of his association with Adolf Hitler, in which he cites the following quotation, purportedly as spoken by Hitler:
...democracy will in practice lead to the destruction of a people's true values. And this also serves to explain how it is that people with a great past from the time when they surrender themselves to the unlimited, democratic rule of the masses slowly lose their former position; for the outstanding achievements of individuals...are now rendered practically ineffective through the oppression of mere numbers.
See: Hermann Rauschning, Hitler speaks: A Series of Political Conversations with Adolf Hitler on his Real Aims (London: Thornton Butterworth Ltd, 1940), 785. Also, see Matt Brundage, Hitler's Views and Opinions of Democracy. Of course, Rauschning has his critics. Some believe his book to be a fabrication. Revisionist Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel spent five years of research on the memoir only to pronounce it "a document of Allied war propaganda." (Personally, I think Hitler did hold this view of democracy. I think he utterly misinterpreted the function and role of Jews in the world, but, he had some interesting things to say about democracy.)
We know Hitler loathed "social democracy" as he found the party in Germany, though in his youth he was attracted to it. The Austrian Hapsburg regime he deeply resented, and the Social Democracy part seemed the answer--for it was all about "equality and brotherly love." He later called the party a pestilential whore. (Mein Kampf, p.37,fl.) Yet, obviously, Hitler later discerned the weakness of German hysteria and depression, and learned to master it. So, was it a self-fulfilling, retro-active prophecy then, that the lower elements come to the top in a democracy?
America is seeing strange things these days, in the name of equality and democracy. Perhaps most indicative of the rise of weakness is the public obsession with apology. One must always apologize. All is well if and only if one apologizes. Democrats and Republicans alike have given themselves over to this fair harlot of psychological manipulation. To apologize means you are dignified, honorable, and true--and right.
Conservative strong woman, Melanie Morgan, demanding an apology from
Berkelely City Council.
The case of the undignified 'pinkos' in Berekely, who shamelessly insulted and condemned the US Marine Corps? Bill O'Reilly asked Melanie Morgan what the patriots wanted out of the Berkeley city council. "An apology!" she said. I knew it was all over then. 'You mean woman should apologize to our proud Marines! You instulted them!" As if Marines were hurt by old women. And what would be the point. If apologies are demanded, they are meaningless. Requiring an apology defeats the whole purpose. If a mere, forced apology appeases all the offended American patriots, then there is no hope. If empty words--words demanded by social or media pressure--would resolve the issue, then truly the liberals have won.
Feb. 26: Radio host Bill Cunningham speaks at a rally for Sen. John McCain. (AP)
Republican John McCain was recently found apologizing for something he didn't even do! So anxious are public figures to score dignity points by this simple manipulation of apologizing. (Bill Clinton made apologizing a compulsion, and a fine art. "I apologize," perhaps his most famous words.) McCain apologized for the fact that one of his supporters, radio show host Bill Cunningham for saying "Barak Hussein Obama." Now that's fine dignity! Strong man John McCain, grovelling like a liberal woman.
Speaking of liberal women, Gloria Steinem is dissing John McCain! She, a 73-year-old man-hating feminist is now saying McCain's POW experience was virtually meaningless as a presidential qualification. She openly made light of his suffering. This was an incrediblely pitiful thing for a woman to do, to mock a man who suffered for his country. Hatred was brought to a new, all-time low. Thank you, Gloria Steinem. And of course, there will be no apology from her. That would be to "feminine." (You see, apologies are very meaningful--mainly to women.)
Gloria Steinem, mocking the POW suffering of John McCain. Never was a woman so
out of place, so demeaning to the human race, at the age of 73, no less, when we
might have expected just a touch of wisdom. Her abandonment rather is permanent.
The liberal "apology" approach to the world was also expressed by heart-sickening liberal Richard Belzer (Detective John Munch on Law & Order: SVU). He appeared on Geraldo at Large last night (Sunday, March 2, 2008). The transcript is not yet available, but he said he was supporting Obama because, if America elected a black man, it would be a message to the world that America was not the big white bully everyone thinks it is. Now there's international apologia, in action.
I remember a Japanese female student when I was at the University of Hartford (Hartt School of Music) in the late 1980's. Tomoko was her name. She said, speaking of disputes, "If you want to win, you must always apologize! Ha! Always apologize!" Clearly, in her culture, apology was a tactic. It was part of a formal procedure in communication--an obviously manipulative one.
So, does weakness--of all kinds--rise to the top in a democracy? Do eighteen-year-olds have eny business voting? When the frontal lobe of the human brain is not finished growing until the person is past 30 years old, do we want masses of immature human beings voting? Historically, when American society was in the formative years, only land-holding males could vote. Only established persons, who had demonstrated their stability and reliability, had a part in electing government. That's the way it was anciently as well, in Greek democracy. Then, in the name of equality, America decided to let uneducated slaves vote (1865). Finally, (1920), women were allowed to vote. Well, one might have hoped this would change the nation for the better. Has it?
Do the candidates today reflect the highest qualities of human character? Do they represent the people? Is that even an appropriate concept, that an elected official represents the values of the people? It's what we sell here, politically, in America. But it boils down to who promises to give the people the most money. That's all. That's what our "democracy" has become. The republic, the republican form of democracy, as been betrayed by free enterprise, I'm afraid. We may not see real republicanism for some time now. The imbalance has become to great. The opposite swing of the pendulum is on its way.
The down side of equality. The ascent of the lower parts. The rise of the weak.