A small part of the Great Conversation . . . . . Edition : Sunday, October 15, 2017. Your comments are welcome on all posts . . . Keep it civil, friendly, and intelligent! Thinking about seeing and perceiving and not perceiving.
Since the New Deal began in the 1930s, about 90% of all federal laws are "administrative," meaning that they are manufactured, published, and enforced by bureaucrats. Congress is kept in "idle" mode, and the job of the federal judiciary is to sort it all out and make sense of it all. And the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to "ratify" it all as "constitutional." (Remember Chief Justice John Roberts' crucial fifth vote on Obamacare? He knew what he had to do.)
Obamacare was conceived in some obscure think tank somewhere; and here we all are. And how are we going to shut down a think tank?
Actually, this way of generating federal law was all old hat even in the late 60s, which I remember. The system was set up and put in place long before my generation, the Baby Boomers, were even born -- in fact, before my parents' generation was even old enough to fight in World War II. So far as I know, nobody has figured out what to do about it -- as in, how to stop it, let alone reverse it.
By the way, I'm not mad at anybody who hasn't "taken the Red Pill" yet. Most people don't even know that there is a Red Pill. But this is "The Matrix," folks.
If you doubt the truth, or significance, of what I am saying, I refer you to the ever-growing "Federal Register." See what laws you are responsible to obey in this country, and see who promulgated them. Good luck and happy reading. I'll bet your eyes glaze over. I'll bet you won't be able to make sense of even half of it. I bet you'll say, "I can't believe anybody has time to even read all this stuff." And I'll bet you're right.
Not really trying to make excuses for my generation. Just saying. YMMV.
When I find a very interesting link, or website, I like to pass it on to the readers of Sycamore Three. I just found another one. (The website has been in existence about five years, and has received hundreds of thousands of hits; so I'm late to the game, as usual.)
If you are interested in historical, cultural, or religious affairs in Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, I think this is a great resource. Hosted by an American journalist who has been in "the former Soviet Union" for some years, and who has been privileged to travel regularly, as a member of the foreign press, with the very top recent Russian leaders, Medvedev and Putin, the information given is of good quality.
Will Grigg posted this personal story on Facebook, and has generously allowed me to repost it here. Will regularly posts at his own website, Pro Libertate, and often contributes to the libertarian website, Lew Rockwell.
"I'm trying to find Vonda Bentley," I explained to the small woman who answered when I knocked on her door in Pocatello, Idaho.
"I'm Vonda," she said, treating the large, brown stranger in her doorway to a look that contained a small measure of skepticism but not a trace of fear.
"My name is Will Grigg, and I live with my family in Payette," I quietly explained. "I was born in Burley in February 1963."
"I had a baby in Burley in February, 1963," Vonda said, a smile beginning to creep across her face.
"Then I would be your son," I replied, returning her smile.
"I've been trying to find you for a long time," she said. "I actually tried to get you back after you were born, but I was too young and I couldn't take care of you."
"I know -- my adoptive parents explained that to me," I told her, struggling to retain my composure. "I've been trying to find you for a long time, as well -- to say, thank you."
"For what?" she inquired.
"For having me," I responded with a tiny chuckle.
"That's good -- sometimes things like this don't turn out this way, sometimes the children feel as if they were abandoned --"
"I want you to know that my adoptive parents, Dick and Angie Grigg, told me when I was very young that my adoption wasn't an act of neglect, or rejection, or abandonment -- but rather one of sacrificial love," I assured Vonda. "They also told me that you did want to take me back, but that you couldn't take care of me."
"That's true -- I was too young and didn't know what to do," she explained. "Your first crib was a dresser drawer, and I knew that I had to find someone to help. So you were originally being cared for by an aunt, but she couldn't give you what you needed." Vonda eventually explained that she took me to a Dr. Sutton (she doesn't remember his first name) in Burley, who could help arrange an adoption.
"How did you find me?" Vonda asked.
"Well, when I was about four or five, I went through my Dad's files trying to find my adoption papers," I recounted. "I learned that my birth mother's name was Vonda Bentley, and for decades I tired to find you and contact you. A few months ago, a very kind friend of mine who is a private investigator, and has access to specialized databases, generously offered to help me track you down."
I told Vonda that my curiosity about my adoption was triggered by the recognition that I "didn't look anything like my parents."
"You didn't look anything like them -- well, you're Hawaiian, you know."
No. I hadn't known that.
Nonplussed, I turned to my friend Scott Watson, who had come with me to Pocatello (after a trip to report on a horrible story of police abuse in Idaho Falls -- watch for details in Pro Libertate).
"I'm not Mexican?" I said, stunned by this revelation.
"No, you're Hawaiian and Spanish -- and Cherokee -- as well as Irish on my side. You have grandparents named Watson --"
"Watson?!" Scott exclaimed. "That's MY name!"
"I was born in Alabama, and lived in Chicago and then California," Vonda continued. "My folks were from Georgia, and their grandparents owned a plantation -- but they didn't have slaves."
Pausing for a second, Vonda said: "Yes, you have Jerry's build."
"`Jerry'?" I said in puzzlement.
"Yes, your brother -- well, your half-brother. He's inside sleeping."
Vonda went into her apartment and roused a fellow who didn't seem particularly eager to come out. (I would later learn that Jerry had worked the graveyard shift, and was able to get only a few hours' sleep.) A few minutes later a very broad man came out and shook my hand. Jerry is 44 years old, Vonda's son from a marriage that ended tragically in 1972 when her husband was killed by a drunk driver. Twenty years later, my half-sister, Lee (or Lea -- I didn't get the spelling) was killed the same way in an accident in Las Vegas.
This might explain why one of the first questions Vonda asked me was: "Do you drink?"
"No -- never, not at all; alcohol makes me nauseous," I assured her.
"Good," she said, nodding her head in satisfaction.
We spoke for about a half-hour, discussing Korrin and our children, my adoptive parents and family, and Vonda's experiences growing up in a home ruled by a very intelligent man with a severe drinking problem. I discovered that my biological father was Hawaiian and, from Vonda's description, most likely Basque ("He wasn't Mexican, but he was Spanish, and he was dark-skinned with a very unusual last name that sounded French or Italian").
Antony, the biological instigator of my physical existence was also -- no other word is adequate -- a gangster.
"He was into some bad stuff," Vonda recalled. "I knew I had to get away from him. I would sleep in a room with lumps under the carpet, and when I'd lift it up I'd find rolls of money, and large numbers of checks, and a stamp with 'bonded' on it so he could cash them, and he was burying furs and other things in the yard outside our house. I knew he was going to wind up in prison, and that if I didn't leave I would have wound up there as well."
Vonda asked what I do, and I explained it to her. As I described my work in reporting on civil liberties issues and police abuse, she nodded in weary, familiar acknowledgement.
We hadn't chatted for more than fifteen minutes before she mentioned the Constitution and the right of self-defense. A few minutes later she lamented that "this country is turning Communist."
"I'm of the opinion that we've already arrived," I said, turning to Scott and commenting that this conversational turn somehow seemed appropriate, if not inevitable.
Vonda is 69 years old. She is youthful, perspicuous, well-spoken, and not intimidated by anybody. She gave birth to me exactly one week before her 19th birthday. She is also very eager to meet my wife and her grandchildren. This is going to happen, very soon.
As we left, I asked if I could give her a hug. She smiled and reached up to me, and we clung to each other for several seconds. Then she caressed my cheek, and urged us to drive carefully back to Payette.
When Vonda last saw me, I was a six-week-old infant named Kevin. She immediately accepted the 50-year-old man who is now called Will. In the intervening decades, she never gave up trying to find me.
I woke up this morning believing that I was half-Irish and half-Mexican; I drove home to inform Korrin that she had married a man who is actually Hawaiian/Cherokee/Basque/Irish -- and who had just been blessed to meet the woman who loved me enough to give birth to me under very trying circumstances, then to find others she could trust to raise me when she realized that she couldn't.
People in America have been prosecuted for contributing to Muslim charities, even "government approved" ones, on some legal theory that they are really funding "terrorists," like Al-Qaida.
"Ties to al-Qaida" was public justification enough to decide that Saddam Hussein must be overthrown by war.
On the other hand, the CIA can covertly, or even openly, send money and ship weapons (including WMDs like poison gas) in support of the very same al-Qaida. They cut deals, and break deals, with whomever they want, with no respect to any law.
But speaking of law, US federal law makes it a crime to even reveal who they are, to common citizens such as ourselves. High government officials are liable for serious prison time if they should dare to name names. (Remember "Scooter" Libby, the guy in the Bush Administration who got prosecuted for that?)
Don't be surprised to find out that they can threaten journalists, congressmen, presidents, and private citizens who get in their way.
My sense of history in the making is roughly as poor as anyone else's but I wanted to record here Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times. The Russian president made a number of excellent points, and showed himself to be a true world leader, appealing to international cooperation and international law as the key for solving problems of violence and warfare, rather than aggressive American military intervention in other countries.
For most Americans I suspect (though a lot of people have been waking up lately, and reacting strongly against the proposed Syria strike) Putin's observations about how America is perceived abroad will come as an unpleasant surprise, which they may or may not accept. What remains is that Mr. Putin's observation is simply true. The world tires of America's intervention in other nations' internal affairs. They tire of "American exceptionalism." They seek nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, in order to be free of the fear of being invaded and messed with themselves.
Putin observantly, again probably surprising his American readers, points out that the poison gas used in Syria was likely used by the Syrian rebels to make it appear as though the Syrian government used it, in order to provoke an intervention from the U.S. to topple Bashar al Assad's regime. Unlike most Americans, Mr. Putin is aware that "false flag operations" exist. He is aware that international intrigue is a "real thing." He saw, and the world saw, though America in her media fog did not, that the people of America were being suckered into another foreign conflict for trumped up concocted reasons. Mr. Putin acted to stop it.
Putin began his first term as president of Russia in 1999, when he took over for Boris Yeltsin. Early in his presidency, I recall George W. Bush meeting with Putin and saying something to the effect of "I look into his eyes and can see he is a good, God-fearing man." Mr. Bush was made fun of for his naivete, but I think there was something to it. I think George W. Bush, before 9/11, before the neocon handlers in his administration completely took over, had a pretty good read of the world. It was Bush, after all, who promised a "humble foreign policy" when he first ran for president in 2000.
Mr. Putin has shown himself the good man in this drama, but I think there's more going on here than meets the eye. The United States has been prevented from doing something that, for over 20 years now, it has taken for granted: the right to strike or invade any country at any time. Could it be that after years of a bad economy, crippling debt and deficits, unwinnable foreign conflicts and suchlike, America has been weakened, while Russia and China have been growing stronger? Could it be that the old unipolar world is giving way to a multipolar world? We will see. But the winner of "the hearts and minds" this week was clearly Vladimir Putin, with Obama coming in far behind.
In his short but important book, The Abolition Of Man, C. S. Lewis proposed a kind of tri-partite view of man that went like this: At the top was the Head, the home of the intellect and rational processes, including the ability of ideation and the aquisition of rational ideals. Lower down was the Belly, the seat of (necessary, but necessarily selfish) bodily appetites and the fulfillment of personal physical needs, such as hunger, reproduction, and the like. Between them, and mediating between them, was the Chest, which he proposed was the seat of virtue and those other things which integrate the activities of the head and the belly and produce a healthy, whole human person. He suggested that modern man (specifically, the man produced in the prevalent western-modern culture he was familiar with, in the first half of the twentieth century) was defective with respect to the chest, the seat of the virtues. He called his first essay of the book, "Men Without Chests."
He further proposed that the educational system, the one that was in place in Britain in his day, was partly to blame for this -- that it was systematically (whether consciously or unconsciously -- as I recall, he believed consciously) destroying the very possibility that the young men of his time could grow up with healthy "chests." Modern education was, in effect, destroying virtue by denying its existence. In Lewis' own words, "We laugh at honor, and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
In his final essay he invoked the "Tao," the Way, as a possible means of recovery. When I first read this book, as a young college student, it caught my attention. I knew nothing whatever of the concept of the "Tao," and certainly had no idea of its relevance to someone such as myself. I guess I had read some brief reference in a high school "World History" course -- but I had dismissed it as some antiquated notion of the always inscrutible and certainly irrelevant Chinese.
Lewis more or less "universalized" the Tao -- if "universalized" is the right word here -- by showing that it was present, or at least implicit, in the writings and traditions of many ancient cultures -- I particularly remember references to the early Egyptian culture, as well as the later Nordic pagans. For the purposes of his book, he roughly equated Tao with what we sometimes call "natural law" -- that "rule" that is there, that we all more or less acknowledge, that exists above, or with, our mere "selves."
Eventually, this got me interested in Laotse, the Chinese philosopher (circa 500 BC) whose name is most closely associated with the Tao. So I read the Tao Te Ching.
I think that it is useful to roughly equate "natural law," in Lewis's sense, with the Tao of Laotse, as long as we remember that, to Laotse, Tao is not only all-pervasive, it is inherently mysterious and undefinable; indeed, the opening sentence of his book says, "The Tao that can be named, is not the true Tao." It is in some sense spiritual, or at least transcendant -- or at least, it transcends language.
Laotse proposed a kind of hierarchy of value: the Tao, whatever it is, is the Highest. Law and legality are the Lowest, except perhaps for anarchy and chaos. Somewhere between them, he said, was Virtue. Because men forget Tao, they become merely Virtuous; because they abandon Virtue, they are left with Law. (Yes, scholars, I know I am simplifying here; please forgive me.)
So, we have the philosophers Laotse and Lewis somehow in rough agreement about the importance of Virtue. And in the absence of Virtue, pace Lewis, there is the danger that the Belly will rule; or pace Laotse, mere Law (legalism) must be invoked to control it.
What is virtue? To the Latins the word meant something akin to "manly goodness," and that is the sense in which I will use it.
The English Bible uses the word in several instances. When the Woman With The Issue Of Blood touches the hem of Jesus' garment, He stops and says, "I perceive that virtue went forth from me." One senses that it was a kind of energy, almost a chi.
St. Peter, in one of his Epistles, stipulates a spiritual progression for the Christian that begins with Faith and ends, several steps later, with Love. In his words, Faith is to proceed with Virtue, Patience, and so forth, before it culminates in Brotherly Kindness and Love. In this case, it is more like an activity or a state of mind (or of the soul).
Christian tradition has long emphasized the importance of the virtues, and has enumerated them. Traditionally there are seven (of course), set in opposition to the Deadly Sins. The lists vary. One popular source gave the list as: Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, and Humility, which is practically a conflation of St. Peter's progression. In this view, it is the Virtues that overcome Sin.
And there is the other, very similar list of seven virtues, consisting of the Four Cardinal Virtues of Temperance, Wisdom, Justice, and Courage, along with the Three Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. The emphasis here seems to be, aspects of character.
Manly goodness, in the best sense then, seems to be possessed of an energy, an activity, and a state of being. It mediates between -- or gathers within itself -- rationality and mere appetite, the ideal and the physical, mind and matter. It actualizes the Good. It aspires to rise above Law to acknowledge the mysterious Way.
If we have lost it, or are in danger of losing it, as Lewis suggests we are, then we must anticipate conflict between rational mind and mere appetites, and a drift toward Law -- that is, mere legalism -- in a vain expectation of controlling ourselves, or being controlled. I fear that this is, in effect, a Falling from Grace.
It's that time of the year again -- the anniversary of "September 11," the event that "changed everything."
Well, did it change everything? No, but I'll be one of the first to agree that it changed a lot.
One of the big things that changed was that it put the Neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party firmly in control of the agenda of the Bush-43 administration; and thereby put the neo-cons in control of the Consensus National Narrative; and thereby put the neo-cons in charge of the Media-Government, with all its power to control diplomacy, create wars where none existed, lie to the people whenever they want to, and to do the rest of whatever it is they do, whether in secret behind closed doors, or in the open all over the airwaves.
Their word for it, not mine, is "full-spectrum dominance." We thought they meant "full-spectrum dominance" over the Bad Guys. Not really -- it's time to meditate on the real meaning of "full spectrum dominance," sports-fans. I am part of the "full spectrum" they are dominating. So are you. So are our families, our friends, and the people we work with. We're all in the "full spectrum" Oh. Whoa.
Most people understand, at some level, that the neo-con agenda is a sort of three-legged stool. Always, without exception, they (and by extension "we", their subjects) are expected to be
1) Reflexively pro-Wall Street investment bankers --that is to say, Standing For Our American Entrepreneurial Way Of Life
2) Reflexively pro-Israel -- that is to say, Standing For A Few Hot-heads Who Have Entirely Too Much Influence In The Only Democracy In The Middle East
3) Reflexively pro-Big War --that is to say, Standing For the Great Crusade For The Four Freedoms Around The World
Okay, I understand that a lot of folks are very okay with all of that. Fine, we'll save that for some other time.
What some people seem to have overlooked is Point Four. It is easily overlooked because it is not often mentioned in polite company, or on the talk shows. Here is Point 4: The neo-cons are also
4) Joined at the hip with the (rather wealthy, influential, and ambitious) intelligence network that is the geo-political backbone of the Saudi royal family.
Remember with me, for a moment, the following facts and factors surrounding September 11, just twelve short years ago.
A. Roughly fifteen of the nineteen "hijackers with box-cutters" were from -- remember? -- Saudi Arabia. ( Read: not Iraq, not Iran, not even Afghanistan) Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?
B. On September 11, when the entire civil air fleet of the nation was grounded, jets bound for Saudi Arabia were cleared to depart the US and fly away unrestricted.
C. The Carlyle Group (oil investors, among other things) includes the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, who are their personal friends. Look it up. The Bin Ladens are from Saudi Arabia.
D. The Media-Narrative immediately blamed Osama Bin Laden for 9/11, before any evidence could possibly have been investigated. Highly placed government people such as Vice President Dick Cheney chimed in. Osama was a supposedly "rogue" member of the Bin Laden Oil Family. He may have been "rogue," for all I know -- he was certainly at odds with some of the more materialistic and secular views of his brethren. What is known is that at the time of the September 11 attacks, he was seriously ill with kidney disease, he was on dialysis, he was in frequent contact with the CIA, and with Pakistani intelligence (also our friends at the time), and his days were numbered. Knowledgeable people both inside and outside the "intelligence community" -- that worldwide network of the Keepers Of The Secrets -- noted that he died in December, 2001. Can we say, "conveniently soon-to-be-unavailable scapegoat," eminently useful to direct attention away from the true perpetrators of the attack?
E. Nevertheless, the Media-Government Narrative, ten years later, "attacked Osama Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan," then "our Navy Seals killed him," the event was "documented" with suitably staged and re-touched photographs, and "his body was buried at sea," in accordance with "Muslim wishes." We know all this because Our President Barack Obama and Our Secretary of State Hilary Clinton "saw it happen in real time!"
Fast forwarding to the present. Which nation is most actively financing, arming and directing the "rebels" in Syria?
Hint. It isn't Turkey. It isn't Russia. It isn't Britain or France. It isn't Israel. It isn't even the good old US of A. Now: three guesses -- which nation is most actively arming, training, and directing the "rebels" in Syria?
Set aside, for a moment, your personal beliefs and commitments, whether for or against, points 1, 2, and 3 above. Let's go to point 4. Do you feel a deep personal and patriotic commitment to support the aims and aspirations of the king and government of Saudi Arabia? (If so, why? Fun fact: the US does not need Saudi oil. Not now, and never has at any time in the past.)
Question to ponder for a moment. Why do our leaders put US foreign policy at the service of the Saudi royal family? Is this some sort of Mob thing -- do our guys owe the Saudis big-time for some bad debts? Or have they secretly converted to the Wahhabist "faith"? Or is this some kind of world-wide conspiracy? Or is it just the ignorant goofiness that the top-level Republicans and Democrats always seem to have plenty of?
I don't know either. But when things are as weird as they are right now -- when government leaders are doing all kinds of things that are not in the best interests of the people of the United States, I'm asking more questions than ever, and I'm also turning on the BS-meter. Right now, it is pegging out.
Some of you have been doing the same thing. I'd say we represent about 10% of the population, on a good day. If I had been writing this as recently as two weeks ago, I might have said that now that people are hurting economically, maybe the numbers are climbing to about 20%.
But here is an interesting thing: the most recent polls show that over 80% of the people of the United States are opposing our government over its Syria policies and its well-advanced plans for war.
Over eighty-percent. (Some polls indicate over 90%.) This means that a clear majority of the people, in just about any demographic you care to name -- poor, middle-class, conservative, liberal, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist -- are starting to ask questions and express doubts -- perhaps as many as four out of five people you and I know and work with on a daily basis.
So if you know -- or if you have any good idea -- about what is really going on, I think now is a really good time to keep on calling out the BS whenever and wherever you smell it. Other people are starting to notice it, too. Help them out.
And I suggest that we all keep an eye on the neo-cons and the Saudis. --it happens.
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration, and author of the book, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, has just written a dramatically worded commentary on what has happened at the G20 summit the past few days.
Over the last several years I have read many of Mr. Roberts' posts on matters political and economic (and I have also read his book). He is a good, sober thinker and writer, and has a pretty good take on where we are, as a nation, and how we got there. I take him seriously.
If the long-term consequences are as severe as he foresees -- then indeed the S has already started to H T F.
My personal guess is that we will see a more-or-less managed down-slide in the economy in the next few weeks and months, rather than outright financial disintegration, as we move into a long and hard Second Depression. But I could certainly be wrong about that. Some sort of rapid disintegration, some "black swan" event, might be in the cards.
Now might be a really good time for folks to track back and find out what really happened on 9/11/2001, since we have, as a nation, been carefully avoiding this up till now. Mr. Roberts provides some very clear statements, if you are paying careful attention.
I have mentioned something about this myself. Here and here. Happy 12th anniversary of the 9/11 Lie, America. Day after tomorrow.
In light of the current peculiarities in the relations between the US Government and Syria, a good friend raises a good question. He writes, in response to my last post:
question I have is about personal strategy. How should Christians
behave in a world that is at war? Many tens of thousands of Christians
left Iraq to escape persecution and went to Syria where they are now the
buffer zone in an even more dangerous hostility. The Christians in
other Muslim controlled countries have to keep a low profile to avoid
being targeted by extremists. Is there anything we can do to help them
and to identify with the suffering persecuted church?
As I said, I think that this is a good question, and one that mindful Christians ought to be addressing very seriously. As with many practical, real-world questions of this kind, I note that the general situation is complex -- tangled, even -- and it should not be surprising that the answers are complex as well.
I do not think that I have all the answers, or indeed, perhaps, any answer; and at the end of this post, all I expect to do is suggest a part of an approach. I will focus my thoughts on the first statement, and on the last question.
(I suspect that my comments will, at the beginning, tend to come across as complaining or blaming, but I sense that they are necessary to frame the situation, at least as I see it. Bear with me.)
Let us begin with the last question: "Is there anything we can do to help them and to identify with the suffering persecuted church?"
My first response would be, with a touch of anger in my tone, "The very first thing that we can do to help them and to identify with them is to recognize that they even exist -- which American Christians that I know have not done." And right there begins a problem for me, since my response consists of a gross generalization, and an implicit general criticism, and I know that it does not even apply to my good friend and brother who raised the question. Nevertheless, I would note, a gross generalization can be true as a gross generalization, even if it is false as to important exceptions. (And I am writing for a very small, but very world-wide audience.) At any rate, I am here talking about bad ideas rather than seeking to blame "bad people," so again I ask you to bear with me, and believe that I am not attacking persons as persons. I am trying to separate bad ideas from good people (or ordinary people). I am seeking to disentangle a bad knot from a good shoe-string, if you will.
My first response, then, reading it backward, is that American Christians have generally not even recognized that the Christians in the Middle East exist at all. Yes, I know that there are wonderful exceptions. I know that Shane Claiborne was on the ground in Iraq with the Christians (and Muslims) before the "shock and awe" fell from American bombers in 2003, and stood with them in that ordeal. I know that Brother Andrew has been in contact with Christians (and Muslims) in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine for many years. I know that Carl Madearis has, too. No doubt there are many others, and I have personally met some of them. But these are exceptional cases of people who have actually taken it upon themselves to go to the locations in question, and get first hand experience. For most American Christians, this is simply not the case. They have not even heard of the Syrian Orthodox Church, or the Assyrian Church, or Maronites. A few may have heard of the Copts, but they know next to nothing about them.
If an American Christian, myself included, wants to know what is going on in the world around him, he is pretty much totally dependent on the available media outlets, and on the pulpit. The media outlets are usually limited to the nightly-news, supplemented with some talk-radio and perhaps a newspaper subscription. All of these are heavily influenced by what I shall call the Consensus Narrative, or more simply the Narrative, which, if not controlled by Controllers, is at least influenced by Influencers. And I would argue, and I think most of us would agree, that this Narrative is capable of misinformation and even disinformation. This Narrative is not interested in talking about the "persecuted church," or even the Church at all, in anything like a truthful or positive light. (At least, I did not hear much in the media about the concerns of the "persecuted church" during "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in 2003, or thereafter.) So that is a part of the problem -- the media-government Narrative is strongly biased. We must deal with it.
The second source of information for most American Christians is the pulpit -- which I am extending here to include most other Christian media -- Christian talk-radio, Christian publishing, Christian music concerts, and the like, which disseminates a "Christian world-view" to its audience. That world-view has been formed, in large part, by "end times" rhetoric and an all-American and Israel-centric theology that has completely obscured the existence and the role of the Church in the Middle East. This is much too broad a topic to address in a single post, so I shall not try. I simply mention that this world-view exists. I would add that it is generally -- another gross generalization -- pervasive in the American Church.
With that I conclude, for the moment, my comments on the final question. As I said, I am only suggesting a part of an approach.
I'll turn to the first sentence in the reply: "The question I have is about personal strategy." I can only give my own.
My own personal strategy has been to re-examine myself and the world around me, and to raise fundamental questions about what is going on. And I have taken the time (years) to search for answers, and to wait for them if necessary. In my case, I have found this personally helpful.
I will admit to some personal biases. My personal biases include the following.
1. I do not trust a single thing that my media/government says or does, and haven't for many years. This personal viewpoint has led me to do quite a bit of personal inquiry and research over some years, and I have found that my government has lied to me, and to my friends and neighbors, on so many matters of importance, for so long, that I am sticking with this bias.
2. I mostly do not trust the spokespersons of the modern American church. They come across as entertainers, preferring appearance over substance. Their "prophecy conferences" do not impress me or enlighten me. Their "worship events" leave me cold. Their constant affirmations of "America's Godly Heritage" is a 95% lie. Their "revelations" and "anointings" I find shallow and unfruitful. Their "proclamations of the gospel," while frequently containing important truth, are too often crippled in their public delivery by ignorance coupled with arrogance.
(This has not, so far, shaken my own faith. I fully believe in everything that I read in the Apostles' Creed. I attend church regularly. I read the Holy Scriptures, and I believe them. I pray, and see remarkable answers. I walk in love. I am kindly to people with whom I disagree -- I do not use such blunt remarks (as I used in #2 above) in face-to-face conversations with brothers in Christ. (Of course, they don't often ask for my opinion, either.) In brief, I seek to trust Christ. But I no longer trust the Church.)
Have I said enough? I do not think that the American Church is in any position to help the persecuted Christians anywhere, at all. For one thing, they are not even inclined to do so. Rather, they are a contributing cause of the persecution of the persecuted Christians, by repeatedly praying to God to bless our all-American-all-Israel-all-righteous invasions of their home countries, placing them under even more hostility and suspicion than they have had before.
Since that is the way that I think right now, all I can suggest is personal strategy. I've suggested a part of myapproach. I have some personal intentions and future objectives. I invite you to develop your own. Perhaps you can find a way to influence your local congregation. I would suggest an approach:
1. Question the Narrative yourself. (Perhaps you already have.) Ask lots of people lots of questions. Ask them what they have found. Take notes on what you find.
2. Question the Christian (churchian) Narrative. Ask lots of Christians lots of questions. Ask them what they have found. Take notes on what you find.
After all that, and based on your findings, it might be time to:
3. Strongly encourage other Christians, preferably in private or in very small groups, to begin to question the Narratives. Ask people. Take notes.
4. Take it from there.
Notice that I do not get around to proposing some major action in the larger American Church to "help the persecuted Church." What help can Laodicea give to Smyrna?
* * *
Your comments are always welcome. Usual courtesies apply.
It's time to switch from the NFL openers, sports fans. It's time to shut off the Disney Channel, Christians. Time to stop watching all the survivor shows, reality-tv addicts.
Here is a still photo (and accompanying article) of Syrian-rebel atrocities. It was clipped from a lengthy video that made some of the staff at New York Times "sick." And even this video, they say in the article, was redacted -- they blanked over the worst parts. Furthermore, you can probably find it on YouTube if you look (I'm not recommending that), because that's where, several weeks ago, I found the one where the rebels ("our guys," you know) beheaded a Christian bishop, the event fully captured by a cell-phone camera. Yes, it was very sickening. Obscenely sickening.
I'd like to say, to those Masters of the Narrative at New York Times, "This is the first time you saw? This is the first time you knew?"
Even if you happened to somehow miss that other recent video I just mentioned, I still don't think so. I have a long memory -- long enough to remember the circumstances that gave rise to a song with these lines: "How many times can a man turn his face, And pretend that he just doesn't see?" It wasn't just a song -- it was a pointer to a muddy, bloody reality -- a totally unnecessary war.
Let's get real, people. Sports are fun; Disney is entertaining; we may even be learning "something" from reality-tv. I'm not asking anybody to permanently abandon their innocent amusements.
But take the time to see this and process it. And ask yourself, as a fully alive human being: "What does my body -- my living human body -- think about what is going on here? Can I put myself in the mindset, and in the body-set, of this situation?", because this is strong stuff.
And the whole world is watching. You can bet, in the recent summit, that Obama, Putin, Cameron, and their staffs -- everybody knew. These pictures cut through a ton of bureaucratic drivel, diplomatic posturing, military "intelligence estimates," nightly-news-spots, and political horse-shit.
Yes, I said horse-shit, on the civil, friendly, and intelligent pages of this blog. I don't often do that. (And I want any comments to be restrained: I'll do the ranting here.) But it is far better to talk about it now, in plain, strong, manly language, than to wait until the real thing hits the fan, when we are finally forced to realize what has been really going on, so badly, for so long -- and our own "Media-Government-National-Security" people's complicity and connivance in the whole thing, because we hadn't been paying attention.
Which brings me to George Carlin. He talked about this kind of stuff years ago. Some people listened, but not enough -- he was not polite. I suggest that some men around here need to listen to what he says, so I've provided a link below. Women and children, I don't advise. His language is awful. But just remember he is trying to talk about awful truth.
If you don't think you can take the language, don't click the Carlin link, I'm warning you. Head back to ESPN, Disney, and reality-tv. But something is still going to hit the fan -- and it already is.
The US Government has no legitimate business, no moral right, and no "national security" reason to involve itself at all in the ghastly war that is going on in Syria. Our hands are already bloody, and our "bipartisan" leadership is guilty, for arming anybody in this tragic and unnecessary conflict.
The rebels are an unholy mixture of hotheads, recruits, mercenaries, and agents of Saudi Intelligence, carrying out their long mission to establish Wahhabi-faction supremacy over as many of their neighbors as they can. Our agents have been supporting them, and giving them arms and encouragement. They want to overthrow and replace the Alawites who control Syria. They have much innocent blood on their hands.
The Alawites do not want to be conquered. They also have blood on their hands.
The common people do not want war.
If America has any role at all, it ought to be: to help to reduce and resolve conflict, not to provoke it. Remember Iraq?
It's time to dust off the old disk and listen to the song again. The title says it all, in one sense; but the song says it better -- read and listen! Lyrics here.Video here. Maybe they could start playing it in the coffee shops and sports bars -- or in the halls of power in Washington, where ignoring consequences, and "being out of range," is a pastime (or mindset). It's time.
* * *
Thanks to LRC for the heads-up. Lyrics by Roger Waters of Pink Floyd.
I hesitate to make this further post about Syria, because I do not want this site to become merely political comment and counter-comment. Whatever the Great Conversation may be, and whatever our small part in it, it must remain, in my view, something more and better than merely "current events," or even a discussion of war and my own anti-war views; and I have already posted my thoughts on Syria (here and here.) That is to say, this "further post" may be hardly more than self-distraction on my part.
I am indeed working on some other posts, with other themes, that I am not ready to publish, delayed partly because the considerable current reportage about the conflict in Syria, and the conflict over Syria, are much in the news -- as they should be, in my way of thinking -- and finally raising fresh lines of questioning that are long overdue. So I am readily admitting to some self-distraction here.
I am here posting several recent links that I have run across, or that have been sent to me by much respected friends. I recommend them to your reading and consideration.
"No Syrian War To Save Obama's Face!" by Patrick Buchanan. Extremely current (September, 2013), and providing interesting information about the past use of poison gas in previous wars. I often agree with Pat Buchanan on matters concerning foreign policy (though not necessarily on matters domestic or partisan), and this is one of those times.
"Syria And Byzantine Strategy," by Robert Kaplan. Extremely current (September, 2013), and with an important (because rare) look at certain successful long-ago political strategies in that part of the world.
"Those Old Colonial Lusts," by Eric Margolis. This was written in June, 2013, and might seem dated; but since it provides much historical background that we have either never known, or have just forgotten, it remains quite timely.
Each of the writers of the links above is a man having long political engagement, and much direct real-world experience. Their thinking is much better informed than we can usually expect from bright youthful journalists who read the predigested printouts from the press-wires to us, or retired old generals who comment authoritatively from power-point scripts handed out by the Pentagon.
Each of these essays can help us rise above the sound-bite-level, tomorrow-morning, either/or-snap-decision mentality that seems to be just about all that the U.S. main-stream-media affords.