True to his grand character, President George Bush has taken responsibility for the American people, rather than enjoy the 'glories' of the Republican national convention. The public welfare in time of severe storm, Hurricane Gustav, is obviously more important than personal honor or influence at the biggest conservative party in four years. Bush has met crisis after crisis with patience, dignity, and honor.
President Bush visited the FEMA operations center in Washington on Sunday,
where workers were responding to Hurricane Gustav. He announced that he
will not attend the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Mandel Ngan/
Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
For this grand character, of course, the weak and writhing Democrats condemn him in the very name of God. National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler said, with a chuckle, that the hurricane just "demonstrates that God is on our side." Michael Moore, always incapable of thinking, said, "This hurricane is proof that there is a god in heaven."
This is the kind of sublimated male homosexuality recently identified on BadEagle.com which 'gets off' on denigrating strength, masculinity, character, and productive social establishment. This perverted juveniles actually blamed Bush for the devastation of Katrina, if you carefully observe their words. But now they're saying the hurricane comes from God, to punish the Republicans. This is positively Oedipal.
And while they have that new theme to indulge their group auto-eroticism on, they will continue their "hussy" against McCain's veep nominee, Sarah Palin. They have a full plate, indeed. Strong masculine character (Bush) and strong feminine character (Palin). Their hysteria may reach new bounds in the next weeks. Bush stands so eminantly above them they simply cannot comprehend him, and feel free to indulge (or project) all their negative, self-loathing onto him; Sarah Palin is so obviously more aggressive, strong, and faithful than anything Hillary Clinton could imagine, the sublimated homosexual liberals will finally demonstrate their utter insincerity and falsity in their concern for "women's rights." It was all about Hillary, not women. It was all about her power, not the empowerment of women. A woman who has truly earned her own power they despise already.
Sarah Palin's idea of a Vogue portrait.
From the Guanabee blog.
Character is something liberals loathe. While they are fast into death for the vunerable, like the unborn, the invalid, or the elderly, they work steadfastly for the deconstruction and condemnation of the living as well--if only in words. They prefer the life of animals, or, in the case of potifess Nancy Pelosi, "the planet." Character seems an alien thing to liberals. It is not part of their frame of reference. While they will virtually idolize the individual right of choice of a woman to kill her unborn (or newborn), this isn't about character, but rather the aggrandized narcissism of a fairly unleased libido.
Sarah Palin, outdoor girl, athletic, aggressive, straightforward, all that Hillary is not.
But while this sick selfishness is going on, President Bush assumes command against the onslaught of nature. Bush patiently, dutifully addresses the welfare of the people. This Hurrican Gustav will no doubt be the finale manifestation of the Bush superiority. He will have made a most noble effort to care for the country. Political theorists and ideologues may differ with the "federal" approach to such problems, but none will be able to deny that Bush put his back into it. He is completely falsely accused of the Katrina disaster. Gustav, in a way, is a second chance. Providential indeed, for those who care about character--as well as the country. Indeed, the lack of character is the biggest threat to the country of all, more than storm, more than war.
I am again reminded of the observation of southern commentator and humorist, Edgar Allan Poe, from Marginalia, LXXXIII, 1849:
I have sometimes amused myself by endeavoring to fancy what would be the fate of any individual gifted, or rather accursed, with an intellect very far superior to that of his race. Of course, he would be conscious of his superiority; nor could he (if otherwise constituted as man is) help manifesting his consciousness. Thus he would make himself enemies at all points. And since his opinions and speculations would widely differ from those of all mankind--that he would be considered a madman, is evident. How horribly painful such a condition! Hell could invent no greater torture than that of being charged with abnormal weakness on account of being abnormally strong.
In like manner, nothing can be clearer than that a very generous spirit--truly feeling what all merely profess--must inevitably find itself misconceived in every direction--its motives misinterpreted. Just as extremeness of intelligence would be thought fatuity, so excess of chivalry could not fail of being looked upon as meanness in its last degree:--and so on with other virtues. This subject is a painful one indeed. That individuals have so soared above the plane of their race, is scarcely to be questioned; but, in looking back through history for traces of their existence, we should pass over all biographies of "the good and the great," while we search carefully the slight records of wretches who died in prison, in Bedlam, or upon the gallows.
Sarah Palin? At forty-four, Governor of Alaska, married to thin-blood Yup'ik Eskimo Tom Palin, Sarah has become Senator John McCain's most recent "maverick" move. He has chosen her as his running mate for the Republican ticket. She will run as Vice-Presidential Candidate. Amazing.
Sarah Palin, Gov. of Alaska, athlete and pageant girl.
Born in Idaho, moved to Alaska as a baby, she was runner-up for Miss Alaska in 1984. Her husband Tom does some commercial fisherman, we understand. She is a conservative, vehemently opposed to abortion and same sex marriage. She is a lifetime memeber of the NRA, being a natural outdoors gal. She is already famed for her actions against meaningless government waste, beginning in the gubenatorial office of her state. Her husband is also a blue-collar North Slope oil worker who competes in the Iron Dog, a 1,900-mile snowmobile race (and who recently crashed in it!). They live in Wasilla, Alaska, (pop. 9,800) where Sarah was mayor before she became governer They have five children, the youngest of whom was born in April with Down syndrome.
Sarah Palin being sworn in as a young governor at the age of 42, alongside
her husband Tom, who is part Yup'ik Eskimo.
Snappy choice, Senator McCain!
We can only anticipate a giant reaction--generally positive. Personally, being the ethnicist I am, I'm curious about Sarah's family background. Sarah Louise Heath was born in Sandpoint, Idaho. Growing up in Alaska, Palin was the point guard for the Wasilla High School Warriors when they won the Alaska small-school basketball championship, in 1982. Somehow, her Bachelor's in Journalism is from the University of Idaho, so, there are obviously serious connections there. To me, she looks faintly Indian, but moreso than her husband, who claims some Eskimo blood (though no actual association with the people--or even interest in). Well, someone like Elsie Meeks (Sioux) group up 1/4 Indian, but never let anyone know, and, looking much more white, admittedly escaped any problems associated with being Indian.
US Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R) (R-AZ) appears
onstage to introduce his vice presidential running mate Alaska Governor Sarah
Palin (L) at a campaign event in Dayton, Ohio August 29, 2008. REUTERS/Matt
Sullivan (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008
Of course, I would not expect any radical American Indian policy or even ideology from Sarah. Why? No background or connections discernable. Her husband's connection is obviously quite superficial. American Indians can never depend on political empathy or even personal concern when it comes to politicians. Sometimes it's there, but, there's scarcely a pattern. Todd Palin is a man enough man, and not shy of politics at all. But Indian concerns have played no known part of his or his wife's lives thus far. Perhaps that may change. For now, he's just a man's man, one we can all appreciate.
Todd Palin, "native" Alaskan
We'll have to wait and see how this all pans out. For now, it's a stunning, exciting choice on the part of ol' John McCain. In a way, it is a perfect choice, from all angles. The ol' soldier is still full of surprises. This is one of the more pleasant ones.
Nancy Pelosi, first female Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of Amerca has recently displayed her final, critical weakness in thinking, a clear absence of ability to reason, to read history, and to understand her proper place, socially, legally, and religiously. Elected in a sweeping Democrat hysteria for power, she--and her type of crippled reason (if not outright lying)--has become head of the most unpopular, ineffective, and pathetic Congress in the history of the America.
The Catholic Church, according to Pelosi, does not know when life begins. She said on MSNBC, (Sunday, August 24, 2008), to Tom Brokaw, "doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition." The staunch, deadly advocate of abortion, in a most hackneyed, obvious fallacy of reason, wants to argue that "life" is undefined, so that "abortion" is not an issue. The woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion is the only issue, the only guide to reason.
I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.
"Ardent, practicing Catholic," eh? Her's is a most egregious error of faith. Though she would have everyone share her notion that she represents everyone on everything, the Catholic bishops have already corrected Ms. Pelosi's intentionally mistaken and evil assertion, and exposed her. But, no matter. She is Speaker of the House, and therefore the authority on all she addresses. That is her egotistical attitude. It is a great swelling of self-importance--without qualification, as well as without reason.
Abortion is and has always been condemned by the church. Just where the "soul" enters the biological entity is the matter of Church dogmatics. That is the point of controversy, taken up where the Greek classical philosophers left of (e.g., Aristotle, 384-322 BCE). The subject of abortion is in no way related to the matter of whence the soul unites with the body. That is an entirely different, separate issue.
Life begins at conception. This is the most obvious fact. The zygote is genetically human. It won't turn into a tree, a dog, or a snail. It is wholly human, from the moment of fertilization. When is it a human being? You have to ask, "What is a human being?" Has Ms. Pelosi defined that for herself? Evidently not very well. She advocates the free practice of every aspect of abortion, and all imagined rights (of the "mother") and benefits.
Nancy Pelosi is clearly in contradiction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Clearly defiant, and clearly unrepentant, in fact advocating her heresy to the world, fancying herself the "speaker" for the salvation of the world. "I'm trying to save the planet," she's said repeatedly. The free murder of human life would seem a bit inconsistent with such a vision, no? Is she that hateful toward the human race? To save the planet, one must destroy the human racfe? Are the "rights" of the human "mother" then the foundation of life or death? Pelosi seems to think the mother has the right to destroy the human race, at any point, for any perceived necessity. It is the woman's right to destroy life. "Choice" is the code word for "murder."
The Church has excommunicated persons for far less offense. This is a spectacular heresy Ms. Pelosi advertises so loudly and freely from the United States Congress. If Pope Benedict understood this properly, he would surely take action. Shall we be disappointed once again?
No, I'm not Catholic, and I don't believe in the "soul" dogma. All I know is, the zygote is genetically human, and it will become a full person in due time. Where does personhood begin? Who knows? That is not the issue, at all. I have a dog in this fight, the hound of truth, reason, and common sense. Something is deeply wrong here.
Pelosi I'm afraid is also disgracing the Italian people, as well as their Roman Church. Italians are great lovers of good food. Pelosi has opened the door to the rivival of cannibalism. With the Pelosi recipe, one could expect "Embrione di Fettucini" (Fettucini with embryos); "salsa di embrione" (embryo sauce); or even "embrione intero" (whole embryo) on pizza, in spaghetti sauce, or even as an orderve (l'orderve di embrione). Can you see the menue? Embryos "fried, sliced, minced, boiled, ground, or baked." Unbelievable. But, what on earth difference would it make? It's not human life, according to Nacy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of the United States Congress. She's approved every other use of the embryo, based on her opinion of its non-human identity. Why not food?
In my humble opinion, being a great lover of Italian people, Nancy Pelosi is a serious offense, and should be removed. Her recent pandering to (and investment in) the T. Boone Pickens "wind" project--another design to rip off the people, shows only more crippled thinking. For all his advertising, Pickens wants the people to invest in his national vision. This means, ultimately higher taxes. The old oil man is bored but still adventurous. Nothing like hot air (wind) to fill in the personal vacuum. So he spends a few dollars on advertising. Small change. He's not going to risk a nickle of his own money. He wants the people to invest. A likely story. Why, they'll all benefit in their own profits, beginning with Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi and T. Boone Pickens, allies in error now.
There are moments when I see George W. Bush as the greatest American Christian president since his name's sake, George Washington. Sometimes I feel like he is so vastly greater a man than anyone else that not only do most people not see it, but I'm sure he doesn't see it, or think it, himself.
Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks on American homeland, Bush declared that Islam was a "religion of peace." (Later this statment was official.) He would not have the world fall into a global religious war. He separated tares from the wheat, the "jihadists" from what he believed was the mass of good Muslims. He did not condemn the religion. He praised it. He condemned those who abused it. He declared a "War on Terrorism."
Never were Muslims treated with more human dignity. This, from the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush.
Bush did not react with hatred, but compassion for the people of Islam.
He towered above the enemy like Lady Liberty towers over the disaster.
Bush went on to devise an onslaught of change in the Middle East, to set by example a different way of life for people oppressed by abusers of Islam. Bush has always believe that the evil, hateful abusers of Islam take advantange of social conditions, devise sinister paths, and seduce young, angry men into blood baths. The fanatical jihadists usurp Islamic religious and cultural authority and twist the whole force into a demonic, destructive enterprise. Bush responded with tough love. Bush has profound compassion for the young Muslim people of the world, and has made colossal efforts to provide for them a better way. This simply has to be divine inspiration. He stayed his course, throughout, even unto this day.
And for his wondrous compassion and love for humanity, Bush has been condemned as the devil himself! Democrats, Liberals, Communists, Leftists--the whole lot, simply cannot abide such nobility amongst them. Their hatred for Bush, their preoccupation with their own visceral rage against him--this is demonic inspiration, no doubt.
Bush is so towering above them in character, in vision, in purpose, in steadfast goodness--they are dysfunctional with envy and hatred. Look at Congress! This is the most pitiful Congress in the history of the United States. All because they are hell-bound determined to hate George W. Bush, and to oppose all his thoughts, his actions, his purposes, his desires, etc. This is an extraordinary pathology before the world.
The columny, the contumely, condemnation that George and Laura Bush have endured is unspeakable. Their quiet, patient suffering of a wicked media and a wicked Congress is even more ineffable. They are saints among us. Surely. They are certainly incomparable.
I do not suggest that the Bush family is conscious of this. Such thoughts may have incidentally occurred to them, somewhere, sometime, in the night watch, in meditation. But they show no indication of self-consciousness about it. They are simply Christian, loving, compassionate people. Their greatness is not of their own devising.
President and First Lady, George and Laura Bush.
Look at how Bush as tried to relate to China, the giant pustule of the Orient. Again, complete and total compassion. Bring them into the fold of freedom, that has been Bush's purpose all along, for all countries. Economic freedom, religious freedom, respect, tolerance, Bush is the epitome of these principles. Liberals are writhing idiots compared to Bush. They have no idea what tolerance means. They are wholly intolerant!
In my mind, Bush is ten times the man I could ever dream of being, in any circumstance. I don't mind recognizing superiority when I see it. I personally react with rage, violent emotion, and deadly force. I would have handled things radically differently than Bush. "Destroy the enemy!" is a very loud instinct in me. In my heart of hearts, I have to thank God that "cooler heads prevailed." If I were president, I should have ended the world long ago, I'm afraid.
In the end, I think Bush will finally be recognized for what he is, the greatest Christian American president since George Washington. The scope of his vision is beyond what most are capable of comprehending. Petty media minds, immature commentators, political riff-raff, these are but obscuring agents, feeding on themselves. It will take a generation or more for the truth to distill, for the cultural "collective conscious" to apprehend the significance of George W. Bush. We won't be around then, nor will he. His grandchildren may be.
Bush does appear to have left the back door open on the Mexican trespassers issue, though. I know he's thinking compassion, again. I know he knows this pitiful people are seemingly hopelessly entrenched in American commerce. It is a hard case to solve. I know Bush has sought a solution in the realm of compassion and care for the masses of tresspassers.
My personal experience, my personal feelings, are all contrary to this. I would expel both the Mexicans and the Muslims. I would try to repair the country, not save the world. But, is the world a worse place for the saving? Or, the attempt at improving it? No. Iraq, for example, is a much, much better place. They have hope now. Thanks be to God. Thanks be to God. They've tasted a different way. It isn't because of my vote. It's because of the vision of George W. Bush.
So let the street thugs, the blabbers, the gainsayers rave on. They are nothing compared to Bush. So very nothing. It is sad, in a way, to see them writhe in such misery before such a great man. But, they are so uninformed and ignorant that they don't know what they're doing. They rather enjoy their own hatred. It makes them feel significant, I suppose. And they get paid for it! Ah, the ironies of life. "Free enterprise," we call it here in America, where even hatred is marketable.
I salute President George W. Bush and his lovely wife and First Lady, Laura Bush, and his two young daughters. May the Lord keep them in the palm of His might hand. How glorious it has been for America, to have such people in our White House. What a joy. What an honor. I can only hope we're not all so duped and doped by the delusions of media players that we can't see just a glimpse of the glory that has been ours as a people.
The world knows what BadEagle.com has said about Islam, and about Muslims everywhere. These statements have been published, republished, and quoted. There is no secret position. BadEagle.com considers Islam an enemy of the free world. We have advocated expulsion of Muslims from America especially, and the repatriation of all Muslims to their home countries, with an ensuing travel ban for the next ten years.
These extreme measures, of course, are due to the extreme dangers promoted by Muslims--"jihadists" the would-be peace makers are wont to call them, still willing to distinguish the masses of supposed "good" Muslims from the few bad Muslims. Bad Eagle has condemned the religion of Islam, and all it false fronts, its pretense, its lying advocates, its evil designs, and every conceivable ill it has generated. BadEagle.com features the writings of Amil Imani, American Iranian patriot, and lover of all the achievements of the free world, who recognizes the value of the Judeo-Christian foundations.
This is our rhetoric, indeed. This is our anger. This is outrage. And this is also logic. This imformed passion is for the preservation of all that is valuable in the world, all blood that has been spent for freedom and enterprise, and joy. Islam is the avowed enemy of all good. That has been the coerced reaction of BadEagle, coerced by the egregious error and satanic hatred of Islam.
But, my recent experience at the doors of death revealed another side--of an individual Muslim person. This is simple fact, and must be portrayed here and now. Whatever its effect, so be it. It is the truth, and I must tell it.
As I was about to die, Sabbath (Saturday) morning, about 3:00 am., I signed "advanced directive" papers, in which I expressed my refusal of any resuscitation, and any breathing machine, or any mechanical life-sustaining apparatus. As I understood my situation, none of this would help anyway. Without breathing blood, there could be no return to life, not real life.
By Sunday evening, I had improved, and was moved out of the ICU to a main floor. Monday morning, my doctor came to talk.
His name is Dr. Waqar Ahmad. (There's more than one by that name, but this is the one in OKC. He is a younger man, and I assumed, by his accent, Pakistani. He wasn't Hindu, nor Persian. He was quite classy for an Afghan, so I assume rather he is Pakistani.)
"David, what about your advanced directive?" he asked.
"Well," I began slowly, "the way it was presented to me at the time of death, there was no hope of recovery..."
He became wonderfully intense. "But what about now?! You have improved. Your count is up to 8.6. What if something were to happen now, and you have this chance?!
He pleaded with me for my life. He urged me to choose life! My Mulim doctor stood there and advocated for Life! An inspired Muslim, in earnest, proclaimed to me, "Choose life!"
I was dumbfounded. The contrast of his personal spirit, with that of the world image of Islam, was unspeakable. I can't describe it. I only know that the man's heart was in it. Totally.
I will say, too, that my whole group of doctors were foreign, and presumably Muslim, except perhaps for the one Chinese (or Vietnamese?). They all had intense enthusiasm for life. That was obvious. Dr. Ahmad (Pakistani?) was my doctor from the emergency room. He was relentless, fearless, thorough, and triumphant in spirit. Incredible, really. He remained that way all along. That is his nature, obviously. I was never more confident. (I could only recall my Jewish doctors back at Yale, when I had all the cancer problems there.)
This is all I have to say. It happened just this way. Again, perhaps it was part of the irony I was passing through, as I, the American Indian patriot, was delivered into the hands of the Third World.
Dr. Ahmad talked to me again Tuesday morning. (I was released Tuesday night, Aug. 19, after five days.) There was one more profound bonding that occurred. I projected the effects of my blood condition.
"Dr. Ahmad," said, "Does this mean the end of soccer for me?"
"No! No!" he said, with protestant enthusiasm!
"Dr., you have brought great joy to me. I thank you."
The Olympics are ancient, of course. The games were first organized in the latter 8th century, BC, in Olympia, Greece. They say Heracles (Hercules) started them, to honor his father Zeus, and there was some concept of a "truce" involved in the games. In other words, it was a coming together of different warring Greek city states--not to fight, but to compete for the superior, abstract display of warrior skills. Bloodless war. Honor, and victory, without death. A novel idea, indeed.
Today, the spirit of human brotherhood and unity is still present in the Olympiad. It is inevitible, as the human body speaks--regardless of race, national origin, or language. The physique is most eloquent and international.
However, as in all other matters of modernity, the lines of race, ethnicity, culture, and nationality, are being sacrificed for global visions. Nationhood is being methodically dissolved before our eyes. This is more and more apparent in the matter of the Olympics. The "truce" has come to mean dissolution of boundaries. The "peace" connotes surrender of nationhood, in a most visceral sense.
Foreigners represent nations not theirs. Immigrants represent the country of others, not their own. This is remarkable. BadEagle.com has noted this element before, with some interest. We questioned the matter of race and national representation in the Miss Universe beauty pageant, as well as national soccer teams. Some find this concern a bit neurotic, naive, or worse, antiquated patriotism. (George Soros would call it "tribalism," the very thing sensible modernity is set to overcome--through globalism.)
Wang Chen, Beijing native,
representing America in the 2008
Olympics--in Beijing.
Athletics, and the human body, are certainly transcendent, as we note. However, race, ethnicity, language, culture, and nationality are most certainly not. When Chinese nationals immigrate to America, become American citizens, then represent the United States in the international Olypmic games, something is awray. Wang Chen (34) moved from Beijing to New York in 2000. She represented the United States in women's table tennis in this 2008 Olympics is Beijing.
Wang Chen, Chinese native, representing the United States.
In other words, there is no real national pride, or national identity. This is considered passe. This is an out-dated concept. The characteristics of a country, the conditions of a country and its ethnicity, are all superfluous. Winning the game is the only important thing. An Al Gorish "whatever it takes" attitude is paramount--with all its immaturity, dishonesty, treason, and egregious selfishness. Nothing else matters.
Thus all international encounters are for the purpose of destroying nations. This is what it has come to. Even Russia's "invasion" into Georgia is not about nationalism. It is not about protecting nationhood, ethnicity, religion, culture, language, or any other such fundamental human condition. The invasion is about grabbing power and resources. Nothing else, nothing other. Russia's invasion insults nationhood, instead. It is a mockery.
And so the world proceeds to destroy itself, in its present form, anyway, the form it has been in since anyone noticed. The strange infatuation with amalgamation, with mixing, with destroying boundaries, this is a power manipulation--brought on by white liberals in power--but not enough power to be creative, only manipulative. As BadEagle.com has observed before, conservatives built the great white throne, but, they are giving it over to the self-righteous white liberals. We all know it, but there doesn't seem to be anything any of us can do about it.
It is a bad sign. An omen. Beware.
To my friends and enemies I make a brief pause in the political efforts of this site to make a statement of personal experience. My recent state may have some affect on my views, or it may not. For now, I offer a compendium of thought, with a conscious expectation that the future views of BadEagle.com are most definitely touched.
Friday morning, Aug. 15, 2008, I checked into the hospital with a hemoglobin count of 6.2. By 3:00 am, (August 16, Sabbath), my count had fallen to 4. Another count down, and the vital organs would cease to function. For lack of oxygen, the heart stops. My immune system had declared war on all that was in me. No "blood" could stand before such a onslaught. The hospital had tried for twelve hours to find some blood I could not destroy. The doctor (a lovely white American woman) gently asked me about my final wishes. It was time. I was going out.
"No blood?" I thought. Of her words. "There is one blood that counts," said, aloud. "The blood of Jesus Christ." This I said, with no understanding what I was saying, but only in perfect need. The words seemed to say themselves. Out of the reservoir of human consciousness, It was as though metaphor had become reality. The Word had become flesh--indeed, blood, in me, in this strange and unexpected odyssey in my mind. The words I was familiar with from childhood suddenly took on their regal, eternal, divine import.
I quite naturally decided against all artificial life sustaining attempts. I was at peace, Sabbath monrning, 3:00 am. Furthermore, I did not believe it would happen. I had no feeling of death. I did not expect to die. Not then. A transfusion of blood was very soon found, and yet with little professional hope, was given to me.
The enemy was stayed. The blood--the blood of the world, the blood of humanity, was given safe passage into my heart.
After a day in the ICU, I was then placed on a regular floor, with all foreign doctors, foreign nurses who only with great diffictulty could be understood, and with an indigent-style Mexican family across the hall with wholly unruly, loud, screaming children, running up and down the hall like it was a playground.
I was suddenly in a foreign country. I, the American Indian patriot, was delivered into the hands of the world--the Third World. My life was in the care of those whose circumstances I have protested most vehemently. (Indeed, from the first moments of the ER, my attending physician was a Pakistani Muslim, I'm quite sure. (I will research this.) Was it irony, justice, or the fullfilment of all I have warned about and against? Was it an omen of ill?
I don't know. At this point, I simply want to make the most basic observation: I am metaphor-prone. This seems either the path to God, or the very barrier of existence. This is either what inevitabily separates the created being from the Creator, or this is as close as words can bring the consciousness before the Lord.
I know it happened. I know, too that I was in the mountains several days before this all happened. There was a kind of preparation. I know that, before I went to the mountains, I had already resigned, spiritually from life, or, from my stake in it. Maybe it's just age, but, the memories of a life of disappointment, unfulfilled expectations, and above all the memory of sins, iniquities, and perhaps just general frustration and failure to achieve, had overwhelmed me. I lost. I was out of the game. I missed the mark. I simply came up short. There was no thought of changing the record. That was my final conclusion. I'm not in. I'm out. I truly gave up. I dropped the sword, on the ground.
At that moment, unexpectedly, I was quietly relieved, and shall I say, happy? I noticed the word "mercy" came into my mind with a meaning I had never known. "For this is My blood...which is shed for many...for the remission of sins," (Mattew26:28) took on an incredible significance.
I then went to the mountains--to worship. To make sacrifice. To offer thanks. I came down, and my own blood was replaced with the blood of man. Many men. All men. Men whose presence I have publically protested. Men whom I have considered enemies of proper reality, of nationhood, and of America. Everything I have warred against was brought upon me in a deluge of personal disalluion. I was burried alive.
I would think mine enemies, if intellectually capable, would find a great triumph in this 'revelation.' Let them. Enemies are at last precious, being the sword of the Lord, according to King David, even "Thy hand." Ps. 17:13,14.
I daren't begrudge them their appointed task. Suffice it to say that, for matters of faith, however, there essentially are no enemies. All are but instruments in the hand of God. One must find an exceeding humility in these things.
And so we pursue understanding of these strange transpirations in the future. For the time being, I sincerely thank all my friends for their prayers. I know they meant what they have prayed, more than my enemies have meant what they have said. I am apparently alive, for now. By Whose hand, I know. For what reason, I am uncertain. For what effect, I shall patiently wait.
Thank you all, again, for your love and prayers. Oh, yes, the other perfected irony is that the World Olympics 2008 has been going on all this time I was in the hospitical. The epitome of human achievement--in my face, as I resigned from all thoughts of self-importants or significance, being alive by the blood of others.
We're all trying to figure out what Russia is doing. Our western leaders seem to think Russia is most definitely the barbarian in this recent case of South Ossetia and Abkhaszia. Russia behaves as if Communism is still strong (except for a few "capitalist" mobsters who have managed to distinguish themselves), and that the Soviet Union still exists.
This is a major challenge in the assessment of international politics. In fact, Russia is not glorifying ethnicity, or even nationality, really. Russia is behaving simply as a dominating bear, as it always has in modern times. Abkhazians, for instance, which borders the Black Sea, a very important strategic position for Russia, are mostly Sunni Muslims. True, they make up only 9.9% of the total Georgian population, but, within Abkhazia, they are apparently a majority. Further more, their "national" flage features the old Communist star and sicle (--very much like the Islamic star and crescent moon). The Muslims, of course, support the independence of Abkhazia from Georgia. (Interestingly, Wikipedia has just now moved the historic "communist/muslim" flags of Abkhazia to a lower portion of the feature, before I had a change to preserve them. As of tonight, August 14, 2008, approx. 8:30 pm, CT, USA. This perhaps means the Abkhazians in control of the article did not wish the former flags to be displayed so prominently.
Abkhazian flag, 1925.
But this obviously isn't the reason Russia support Abhkazia. It is the strategic value, in oil, gas, and sea sports. No doubt.
Now, the Chechnya story was all about "white" Muslims breaking away from Russia. Russia certainly didn't support that. Yet, Russia support Serbia's endeavors to hold on to the heartland of Serbia--Kosovo.
It very clear that Russian leaders are thinking neither nationally, ethnically, nor religiously. It is strictly power. Cold, hard, naked power. Thererfore, Russia's actions are wholly inconsistent, and American commentators are very immature and unwise to try to pio Russia's positioni down on anything but absolute self-interests--of the leaders, not even the slavic base of Russia.
Abhkazian flage, 1978.
Russia, like China, has been under a godless, amoral kind of leadership for century. There are no morals comparable to Western Judeo-Christian values--which from the basis of America and certainly used to be the basis of European governments. It is very foollish to attribute our Western values to the mind and spirit of countries like Russia and China. This is a lethal mistake.
And it is a terrible fallacy to think that America's moves in the world are at all comparable to Russia. This is the liberal take, comparing, for example, Russia's invation of Georgia to the American operations in Iraq. America is trying to bring a better, more prosperious way of life to the countries we're involved with. No such motivation whatsoever exists in the ideology or purpose of any Russian leader, as articulated in the last century. Communism is all about dominance, and genocide of unwanted populations--regardless of religion or ethnicity.
I have said many times before, Russia is no friend of the United States. Never has been. Never will be. Nor will China. This is all wishful thining, positive thinking, even prayerful thinking on the part of some American leaders. To assume they value what we value, to project our values onto them, this is sophomoric nonsesne. It is idealism, not reality.
Russia leaders are going to do what they want to do, just like China. I think we should think of them as absolutely hedonistic, without morals, and only the restraint of self-interest. To them, religion is a cultural trapping of some kind, nothing more. It hasn't had any affect on government for a hundred years. Religion there means nothing.
Nor does ethnicity, or nationality. They are just tools in the trade of dominance. A rather brutal dominance, if history is to be regarded at all.
The emblem of Islam. In old sea-faring lore, the crescent moon was
known as the horns of the witch, or some such idea.
Labeled as another "break away province" of Georiga, Abkhazia is apparently fully cooperating with Russia. It seems this Georgian "country" comprises quite a large number of separate ethnicitics, a number of whom do not want to be controlled by anyone. They want independence and autonomy. Perhaps this is the liberal media's reading, which it wants quickly to turn into a slam against any group in America who prides itself in its ethnicity--such as the white race (rather hesitantly), or the American Indian (rather openly). Everyone is supposed to mix, intermarry, and destroy ethnicity. That's the liberal plan.
But, it never works, not at a national level. The fear of "balkanization" is backwards. Conservatives will decry American Indian reservations on a completely inappropriate and impossible analogy. Indians are not separatists. We simply did not wish to join our enemies. We have been content to be poor and insignificant, socially. Better that than to be something we're not. Besides, our blood-bought treaties give us that right to remain ourselves.
No such historical circumstance exists in this Caucasus region, or elsewhere. Did the Georgian ethnicity have war with the Abkhazians and settled it by treaty? And is Georgia asking the Abkhazians to be something other than what they are? Russia has been involved in the Black Sea (and the Caspian Sea) for some time, as peace keepers. However, the ethnic groups seem perpetually unhappy unless they are autonomous.
What is the real argument against this? Why shouldn't they be "free?" Is it about natural resources, like oil and gas? Is it about pipe lines and money? Drugs and illegal dealings?
From the tea fields outside the village of Duripsh.
The Abkhazians are among the longest-living people in the world (at least as reported in the '70's). They are Caucasus people. In 1974 Sula Benet published a book, Abkhasians: The Long-Living People of the Caucasus.(Holt, Reinhart & Winston). It was part of a cultural anthropology series (--the editors' forward being written from Langur Burg, Germany). The book recommends the Abkhazians for their live-style, to which the author attributes their longevity. It is a very tribal approach, lauding the Abkhazian family structure and larger social structure, as well as their psychological state resulting from these cultural elements. "Uniformity," Prof. Ms. Benet writes (p.103) "and predictability of both individual and group behavior, the unbroken contiuum of life's activities, and integration of the aged into the extended family and community life as fully functioning members in work, decision making, and recreation," are factors at the foundation of their long life. And diet is extremely important: "As a rule, the Abkhasians are slim and seem to have no excess of fat, especially the old people. However, they do not give the impression of frailty. Overeating is considered dangerous, and fat people are regarded as ill" (p.21).
Of course, this is a liberal study, to promote liberal values. So, let's say the liberal advocates the preservation of culture and ethnicity.
But the liberal in the United states wants to invite every ethnicity in the world to come in, keep their language, their religion (or lack thereof), their culture, especially their flag, and the liberal wants the problematic ethnicity to remain itself, and demand laws to protect its idenity. Two cases in point: Mexicans and Muslims (Arabs and Pakistanis). This is not a proper application of the principle of cultural preservation. This is a tactic to destroy American culture, American religion, American values. These people have their own countries! The liberals is therefore not only a liar, but a malicious deceiver.
And yet in the present Georgian conflict, the media seems to think the underdog (the weak) is Georgia, and that Russia is the bad guy. The media is not addressing at all the idea of the preserving of ethnicities inside the many-faceted society of Georiga. We don't really know what offenses Georgia has commited against these "independent" break-away states like South Ossetia (on the northern border) and Abkhazia (on the southern border). Maybe these states just want to be individual nations. They don't want to be part of a larger conglomerate. Is that an evil thing? Liberals want to praise the aged, but not McCain. They want to praise the Abkhazians, but not immitate them. The market would never allow that.
The media continually messes up our news! Too young, too uneducated the news people are. Too corporate in mind set. Years ago, probably 15, a man in my congregation said his is wife (an Irish woman) observed the problem: there is too much emphasis on the youth. Indeed, the youth are mindless market tools, voracious, unwise buyers. Business takes total advantage of them. Well, I think we can figure the news media into that forumula. Ah, but would we rather look at Julie Banderas or Walter Cronkite?
One thing for sure, in the case of Cronkite, age did not mean infalibility, or even fundamental fact. So, if age doesn't guarantee anything, we might as well have something pleasant to look it, right? Thus procedeth the news. Oh, well, Walter was a fine looking gentleman. The point is, in media business, age means nothing. It's about sales. Youth controls sales. Always.
On with the war in Black Sea war. We don't have enough accurate, unbiased information to say, "Let the best man win," but we can at least say, "May the truth be known."
On the Russian front--
Once again, American media, and apparently the American government as well, is showing fundamental error of judgment when it comes to human nature. Once again, American leaders and their megaphones (the media) show profound--even idolatrous regard for ideology, and disastrous disregard for basic human nature. Americans seek to transcend ethnicity and race (--Barack Hussein Obama, case in point), but only to find out that the world is based on ethnicity and race! To ignore this is obviously a formula for guaranteed conflict.
Georgia breaks away from Russia. Ossetia breaks away from Georgia. Russia defends its citizens in South Ossetia (a bordering province of Georgia), and behold, Russia is evil, again. (Never been known in the modern Western world for much else, of course. However, of late, interesting values are surfacing.)
In a media propaganda pic, elderly Georgian women seek to escape the bombs of big
bad Russia. Never mind the Serbian civilians whom NATO's Wesley Clark (US general)
bombed to smithereens.
Russia is committed to protecting Russian citizens. We should think everyone could understand that. But the very first headlines on the present "war" in Georgia had it that Russia was the bad guy. Poor little Georgia was being attacked by the big bear.
Much later, those willing to research for themselves, not foolishly, blindly trusting media or government leaders, discovered that South Ossetia, a small province in Georgia, wants independence from Georgia. Georgia instigated military aggression against South Ossetian separatists. The majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens. Why shouldn't Russia use a strong arm to support them? They have always felt part of Russia, and have never wanted to be part of the Georgian state.
Remember the Faulkland Islands, off Argentina? British Citizens lived there. Argentina claimed the islands were theirs, and invaded with martial law. Maggie fired up the Royal Navy, and in a whif of smoke, the Argentinian aggression was dissipated. The world congratulated England.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Consider Hungary, and the fact that nearly a million and a half Hungarians live in Romania (some 6.6% of the population). They are mostly concentrated in Transylvania. After the Austro-Hungarian empire dissolved, Romania one much territory, and the Hungarians within Romania were stranded. Some 360,000 Hungarians were able to leave Romania, however, by WWII. One would think that no ethnic group would chose to a minority in a foreign country when their own nation is next door. Hungary has not instigated a war with Romania over lost territory. Would the world support them if they did?
And what about Serbia? The Albanians have "migrated" en mass onto Serbian territory, and have manipulated their way into trying to take the territory from Serbia. Guess who supports them? The Uniited States of America. Yet, here, half the country--I should say, more than half of the unreliable, traitorous senators in Washington--support the illegal migration of millions upon millions of Mexicans into this country, as if they are willing and hoping that the Mexicans will one day claim independence in all the southwestern states of America. It is suicidal, with lesson after lesson in the world, in present conflicts, to orchestrate massive migrations of differeing ethnics into a foreign country.
Ethnicities want autonomy and independence from "foreign" rule, always. Aristotle observed (The Politics, Bk.5, Ch.3):
For just as a state cannot be made out of any and every collection of people, so neither can it be made at any time at will. Hence, civil strife is exceedingly common when the population includes an extraneous element, whether these have joined in the founding, or have been taken on later.
This is not to say that different peoples can learn to live together under the same nationhood, but, the point is, a nation (ethnos) is an ethnicity--at the foundation. America, for example, is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation. America has done rather marvelously in the matter of accommodating every other ethnicity, religion, and language in the world, indeed. Americans have been the most generous, forgiving, and fair-minded people in the world. However, America has over-reached the reasonable balance in these things. In the name of a Communist, perverted, destructive use of the ideology of "equality," American liberals are trying to erase the ethnos of America. The larger picture includes global business, basically. There is no other explanation. They will not have ethnicity interfering with business. They will not have nationhood stand in the way of their ambition of global control. Globalist capitalism works hand in hand with Communism, really. Both eschew nationhood.
But one lie leads to another. If the globalists are pleased to use "equality" as a pretense for destroying ethnos, then they are also pleased to point fingers at anyone trying to preserve it. For example, Serbia is Slavic. Russia (the Muscovites) is Slavic. Only Russia is supporting the "territorial integrity" of Serbia. President Bush, ironically, is preaching the "territorial integrety" of Georgia, as the Ossetians was to joing their ethnos to the north.
It is a question of nationhood: to be, or not to be. Shall their be nations? Or no? If so, then there are simple steps that must be taken to ensure the fundamental constituents of nationhood. If not, then sovereignty is passe, a primitive mechanism of the past, an archaic way of being.
The most obvious point: one cannot ignore ethnicity or race. It will rise up, with explosive force. America needs to stop pretending that all ethnicities of the world deserve to be here, to partake of the American dream--of material prosperity. America needs to stop trying to give away all that it has earned. Generosity ends when the pockets are empty. If America is to remain a nation at all, it must sacrifice ideology for reality. America's own prosperity was earned by blood, sweat, and tears. To give it to others who have neither bled, worked, or sacrificed for it, is suicidal. And poverty is a black hole. No amount of wealth given away can fill it.
Letting anyone in the world come and live here--especially illegally, is essentially giving away what others have earned. This is criminal on the part of our government. While it is a good thing to care for the poor, one cannot eliminate poverty. Poor people might take some responsibility and stop multiplying irresponsibly and self-destructively. Poor people can exercise a little discipline, can they not? It is arrogant and self-righteous to think otherwise. After all, charity is for the poor, not for the conscience of the rich.
Let each nation strengthen itself, be responsible, and, as a person, be self-reliant as much as possible. Let all ideologues remember that ethnicity cannot be erased. Nation is ordained. Race is sacred. Beware.
UPDATE: Georgia pulls out of South Ossetia
American Indians have always been great lovers of trade. "Haggling" it was once called. "Bartering." This thing for that thing, whether it be objects, land, horses, clothing, or even Indian woman at times. It was always this for that. To this day, there is a tribe that carries a name honoring the spirit of trade: Coeur d'Alene, the French called them. "Heart of the Awl." (Indeed, the Schitsu'umsh Indians thought the French traders were so completely heartless and niggardly in their trading that their shrunken French hearts were small enough to slip through the eye of an awl (meaning the stitching awl--the tool used to make tiny holes in leather, for sewing). Of course, Schitsu'umsh (or Skitswish) means "those found here," or the original people of the area. Interestingly, one has to observe again, Indians usually took on names that someone else gave them. Most tribes have a word for "people" in their own languages, but they never went by that name. So grand they were, Indian people were content to be nameless. Our tribal names were the responsibility of others. Our impression on them, that was our name. (For example, the Comanche word for "people" is numunu. And today, in this politically corrrect fantasy world, Comanches are calling ourselves "Numunu." But "Comanche" apparently comes from a Ute word, "komats," which means "who wants to fight me," or "enemy." That was the impression Comanches made on other Indians! Komatcia is the Spanish word given to the territory when the Komats lived. So goes the theory.)
Coeur d'Alene Indians of an earlier day.
But now, about trade. Exchange of property. Trading goods for goods, rather than for gold. This is a lost art in the world today--at least when it comes down to objects. At a global level, bartering is still very much an active principle, only the goods are more abstract, giant, and have much more impact. Building an oil refinery in Saudi, for example, in exchange for a permanent (if partial) ownership, has an immediate substantive effect on say, England, or the United States, but a much more notable impact on the elite of Saudi Arabia. And when it comes to dollars, the "medium of exchange," the principle and power of the barter is even more effective. Actually goods, actual material substance--in quantity as well as quality--is forever shifting. Money means instability, in principle. Money usurps the actual trade.
"Enemy" Indians (Comanche),
So, in the barter, in the exchange of one usable thing for another usable or wanted thing, one immediately must determine value on an entirely different basis than the theory of any "medium of exchange." The middle-man position of money is anathema to visceral values in trading. Being a lost art, however, bartering is something that is even feared in civilized peoples. It appears a hindrance, something that inhibits freedom to get exactly what you want. Modern people simply do not value a thing based on its comparison to another thing. instead, moderners value a thing in terms of dollars (money), knowing that the money can purchase for them anything they want. What the person wants is the basis of value, That much is always true.
Now, when one has a group of similar objects to chose from, privileged to take but one, what is basis of determining which object to take from the group? Quality, usually. Perhaps there is an element of utility as well. The point is, the eye (or the mind) becomes quickly discriminatory, or discerning. In the modern market, there are dozens of similar products, with differentiation often based on a whim of the ego. A person may prefer a red car with leather seats, as opposed to a blue truck with vinyl seat covers. A person may prefer the scent of this soap to the sent of that soap. This all says the market is based on the personal desires. And desire-based market means the capitalist economy is based on the individual. Individualism is the key to winning over the buying public, ironic as that may seem, different as people are.
What of the different people in the world? There are seemingly innumerable clans, tribes, ethnicities, races, and "nations." (That 'market' seems to have evolved somewhat, historically, as well.) When the mind is confronted with a group of similar objects or subjects, does not the mind immediately start discerning the relatively more desirable? One would think that the person would naturally perfer his own identity, his own kind, in this natural discerning process. Birds of a feather do flock together. It is nature.
Jewish girls (Juhurim) of the eastern Caucasus. They spoke a
Persian dialect, "Tat."
But, confronted with the tribes of the world, it seems somehow problematic, even offensive, for one to show preference. "Racism," "prejudice," "ethnic chauvinism," or some other such nonsensical notion is superimposed, so that the natural man is most unnaturally restricted. Yet, the even deeper instinct, still operative despite civil or social law, is even more "offensive." The instinctive notion is this: one tribe has to be more valuable than the rest. One is more important than the others. We are compelled to chose. We're innately cognizant of a superior tribe among us. We have intuition of superiority. If not our own tribe, then we recognize it in another.
Value. It is about value. What people have the most valued "goods" to offer? We could theoretically ask, "Will the real valuable people please stand up?!" Personally, I think this is the inevitable direction of social consciousness. No amount of integration, intermarriage, or Communist programmed multi-culturalism can erase or nullify this basic element of human nature. We want to know who has the goods! Who has what is most valuable, or who knows what is most valuable?
BadEagle.com has given a good deal of attention to the Jewish people, Many readers have been offended by this. I can only say it has been my personal notions that I have presented. It is a simple construct. Let me explain.
I believe eternity is the thing valued most. Who has that? Who barters everlasting life? And what might be the matching trade? ("What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matt. 16:26. Or better, as the wealthy young Jewish celebrity asked the simple folk rabbi, "Good Master, what good thing must I do, that I may have eternal life?" Matt,. 19:16. At least the rich Jew asked the poor Jew what value was in terms of action, or deeds, and not objects. At least he was that pure or 'abstract' about it. He knew that ultimate value has nothing to do with material things--even though he was rich. He knew the "trade" for eternity was spiritual.) I personally believe that there is a personal Creator, and that He holds eternity. It is His offer to make.
Now. the Christian version of Judaism is increadible: God bartered Himself. There was no good that man could do, or offer he could make. Nothing that God valued. There was no trade. The Lord traded Himself. All we are asked to do is accept this. He values us, our existence, our person, our being. That's what He wants.
But there is an alienation somehow. We're separated from Him. We're apparently averse to Him. "Fallen," as they say. He has to provide the remedy, the fixer, the "deal." I say "deal" because it involves our personal freedom of choice. He doesn't "fix" anything without our consent and cooperation. Within Himself He has already created the fix.
It is entirely too incredible for the mind to take. It cuts us out of the deal, we seem to think. We want to offer something. We want to make the deal. Therefore, I say that this Jewish thing (and I consider the New Testament another, very Jewish document), is the map, the contract, the offer. I consider that all the teaching of reality, all the understanding of human nature, all the word of the Bible, is Jewish. The Jew is the broker. The Bible comes to us as the experience of Jewish people, not of Mongolians, Netherlanders, or American Indians. Every word of the Bible is the record of Jewish experience.
The presenc of the Jew in the world is therefore a divine sales pitch. A "For Sale" sign. The offer is mercy. In fact, it's totally free! (No wonder no one really wants it. We just don't think that way.) Only from the Jewish experience would such a construct exist. It is completely transcendent.
So, indulge me. This is my attempt to deal with my own death-oriented nature. This is my response to my own genetic coding. Perhaps i'm a little too ambitious. I attempt to transcend myself. Perhaps I should leave Jewish people out this, lest I make more enemies for them. All I know is, I want eternal life. I do not presume to have it. There must be some way of procuring it, therefore. I consciously seek that way.
We shall talk more of these things in the future. I'm still coming down from a Rocky Mountain high. The reentry into normal airs was disastrous. A four-hour delay in Aspen! I've wound up in Phoenix right now, and hope to be home in Oklahoma City by tonight.
I have been in Aspen, Colorado some days now. I have been to the top of Aspen Mountain, and Snow Mass Mountain, and today I hope to be at Independence Pass. I have observed many things, but I chiefly note the effects of mountain air, memory, and imagination. Mountain air involves a certain depletion of oxygen, which affects one's mood and thinking; memory is the foundation of sentimentality, of course, and imagination is the will to manage or create, or somehow do something with memory. Imagination is like sentiment-gone-future.
I've been to Aspen before, twice, in fact. It's all about music, for me. But there are other reasons. My sister lived and worked in Aspen for a good number of years, before moving to the Sonoran desert. I have many associations and memories of my sister here in Aspen. The place is a vortex of memory, and imagination for me. The town, at least the west end, is indescribably idyllic. All this, combined with with mountain air, sleep deprivation, and the mind is ripe for philosophy, meditation, and vision.
Oxygen deprivation is associated with near death experiences (hallucinations), and certainly, thin mountain air can induce the mood of the visionary, when given a chance. One then no longer wonders why the ancients went to the mountains for vision quests, or even more mundane meditations.
In addition to this "natural high," so to speak, there is the matter of the natural inclination of the human mind to cling to objects. Object orientation is the pith of most religion in the world. "Fetishism," it's called, in the more primative forms, as in voodoo dolls; "idolatry," it's called, in the more sophisticated religions, as in statuary around the world. Generally speaking, the object orientation involved an object functioning basically a mnemonic device, like a psychological prop. The object has all manner of memory associations, naturally, in addition to those that can be consciously programmed for it.
However, beyond memory and what we could call natural sentimentality, there is the aggressive form of sentimentality--projection into the future. This is were vision, and the supernatural come into play. While ghost-ism or spiritism is heavily dependent on sentimentality, there is the matter of visions, seers, and fortune tellers. I believe this is the flip side of sentimentality. It appears to me that the elements of sentimentality, reversed, or turned inside out, become the elements of visions-- heathenish, earthly prophecies.
Thin air, objects, and imagination, these combined can make for a paranormal punch that can knock someone off his horse. I feel genetically programmed for all this. It is so natural, so powerful, and so right. Yet, it so happens that my religious upbringing, the Bible, and my mother's faith, have given me a certain objectivity which disallows any conscious participation in "thin air" religion, or object orientation. While I am overwhelmingly sentimental, I cannot leap off the edge, and give myself to imagination. I consider rather the helm. I seek command.
I resist natural spirituality. Indeed, I rebel.
Perhaps I am fooling only myself, and I am actually submerged in the flesh, the earthen vessel, the vain passions of self-oriented wandering, and the vicissitudes of natural consciousness; nevertheless, I 'fancy' myself independent, or at least consciously unwilling to follow the spirits. I deny the undercurrents.
Is God then a rebel? Is the religion of the Bible a resistence, yea, a rejection, of all that naturally is--within the mind of man? I wonder. The ancient Hebrew religion is absolutely unique in its approach to reality. There is no question about that in my mind. But, not being Jewish, I just may not have the genetic capacity to wield the mastery over the wordly elements. I may have presumed to much in this matter. Perhaps I am incapable of true religion. I can only observe it, admire it, even honor it, but, I can't really fully participate in it.
So, I stand at the edge of the cliff. I look on from a mountain view. I observe. Like, I'm not really there. I'm in the pagan reality. I'm in the spirit world. I merely desire something better. I merely long for the greater view, the true God. The Creator.
Three mountain tops in the Colorado Rockies, and this is my conclusion. I will have pictures to post in the future. This piece was hastily recorded while still en route to Independence Pass.
It was a unique sentiment in American history, the days of the open range cowboys. A kind of professional frontiersman he was. A social pioneer. He faced the Indians a lot sooner than many settlers. He also encountered those beautiful Mexican girls out in the southwest. All in all, he was a special character in the annals of uniquely American history.
There is a novel by Jack Schaefer (1907-1991) called Monte Walsh (1963) that, probably more than any other story, re-creates the sentimental value of the passing cowboy era. It was made into a TV movie "Monte Walsh," staring Tom Selleck, in 2003. It's all about the agony of change. Social change. Change that, like a locomotive, cannot be put off, cannot be averted, and cannot be avoided. (I think it's an American Indian story, in disguise!) It is a kind of living death. A love story.
Tom Selleck as Monte Walsh
Of course, not all change is progress. Sometimes, change represents tyranny and loss, and it requires a revolution to change that back. (The current sales pitch of one Barack Hussein Obama, for example, represents a regressive kind of change into loss of freedom. It represents only race change, higher taxes, and less freedom.)
But, the passing of the cowboy days was definitely for progress. The Indians had of course already gone through all our worst changes. For what Indians passed through, few even knew about, or cared. But the passing of the cowboy, even fewer knew about, and could not care less. The cowboy was like the last Indian. He was the white man Indian, in a way.
Interestingly, the Monte Walsh novel was first made into a movie in 1970. The original movie starred Lee Marvin. Yet, the writer of the film script was David Goodman. That's a curious matter. The story is basically the same. Jack Schaefer is scarcely acknowledged as the original source. More interestingly, the 2003 version with Tom Selleck copies some seens with exactitude, and creates others completely differently. Well, Hollywood is a cyclic machine. Great stories are rehashed, again aend again.
Lee Marvin as Monte Walsh
In fact, the original "passing cowboy" movie was made in 1962, called Lonely Are the Brave, starring Kirk Douglas. It was the story of one Jack Burns, a social misfit in modern times, trying to live the life of a past cowboy, in style and in spirit. This is a sad one, too, sad because a man in his comfort zone is a hard thing to crack, and it is especially tragic when his refusal to 'move on' actually costs him everything. Lonely Are the Brave was based on Edward Abbey's novel, The Brave Cowboy.
Kirk Douglass, as Jack Burns
And so we see a certain history just in the matter of recapturing the history of the passing cowboy. Again, this is the white man's "Indian story" within. This is the white man's experience of being Indian. I might add, Southerners generally know that experience as well. It is a social archetype, really.
Eras of history, within a single national identity, are fascinating to observe. America has of course always been fascinated with its western history, as has the rest of the world. The wild, wild West, there was nothing like it, before or since. The circumstances seemed unique and "indigenous," as it were. The surge of passing cowboy novels in the 1960's, however, is curious. Perhaps it was a delayed recouping from WWII. Perhaps it was a reaction to the radical social changes that were beginning to permanently scar and scare America. Perhaps the days of the old West will always function as some kind of anchor in the American psyche. America was great then. America was wonderful then. Young, strong, and brave. Yet, all wonders pass, as change continues to stampede in the world.
Jesus remarked how sometimes leaders of a culture will decry the sins of the past generations, yet repeat them with worse intensity (Matt. 23:29-32). Can not the reverse be true as well? Can a present generation laud the beauty and better times of the past, and at the same time work to recreate those times with special fervor?
Or have we run out of frontiers?
Are globalism and racial mixing all that's left to do? With the world end in a diarrhetic spasm of autolysis?
Cowboys and Indians. That's what we need again. Bring back the cowboys and Indians. Never mind which is which. They went through the same thing. They are the same entity, essentially. They were the conservatives, the patriots of a life. Socially, the cowboy never achieve a high status. He was just a new kind of white trash, out on the free plains rather than clumped up in cities. But, no character in American history has the public treasured more. No kind of American holds a bigger place in the heart of this country.