Crushed

Bahukutumbi Raman has been in the forefront of raising deeply troubling issues about Pakistan as it exists today. Pakistan is considered to be an ally of the U.S. Indeed, even if it weren’t, it would almost have to have been invented. Pakistan is said to have an arsenal of nuclear arms. It is one of the primary bases from which we fight terrorism in Afghanistan.

Those who have studied Pakistan have been warning that Pakistan may not be all it’s been cracked up to be. For one thing, Pakistan is deeply divided. This division has fissures extending into every Pakistani heart. On one hand, Pakistanis are a proud people who wish to join the modern world and be respected within it. On the other, there are those who have not exactly embraced modernity. This too springs of pride; only, it is a ruthless, savage pride that seeks to dominate and oppress on a most basic level. Modern weapons have exceeded their usefulness in curbing such appetites.

As such, when we speak of Pakistan, we speak of separate factions, each with its own way of doing things. An agreement with one will fail to satisfy the other.

The primary victims of Pakistani chaos are the majority of its people who are people like any other. It is they who are caught between a rock and a hard place, and suffering. Second, it is a threat to India. Pakistan has never healed from the partition which Gandhi and Jinnah engineered in the interest of peaceful coexistence. Jinnah demanded a separate Muslim nation to which Gandhi acquiesced.

The only difference between India and Pakistan is their religions. India’s (by no means less intense) devotion to Hinduism nevertheless remains tolerant of other religions and has been able to move forward in important areas under the banner of a more or less secular approach. Pakistan (and the Middle East in general) has not.

As Pakistan fell further and further behind, the need to blame others became acute. It did not help for Western nations to exploit Pakistan’s despair. Now Pakistan has become a problem that threatens to plunge the world into all-out war. It’s primary ally is China. (America only pretends to be allied with Pakistan for media consumption.) China, too, will not be able to deal with the chaos that is Pakistan. It will continue to promote and use such as it is for its own purposes.

There are now many who are deeply entrenched inside Western camps who seek to destroy capitalism. Islam’s goal is the same. Pakistan (and Islam in general) is being used to undermine the West. It is only a tool (and tools can never exceed their specific function). In the end, Islam has no prayer of winning. When all is said and done; it, along with Western liberals (useful idiots), will be crushed.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Thinking Outside the Box

It has been noted that if the Chilean mine collapse had happened in the U. S., the trapped miners would have died. After a suitably scripted period of rhetoric and hand-wringing, Obama would have imposed an immediate moratorium on all mining operations, and appointed a committee to propose a series of new regulations; and another to determine ways of exacting damages (fees) for the government to exploit. Such assessment is an obvious slap at our current administration and can obviously never be substantiated . It nevertheless is based on what we have come to know about our leadership thus far - thinking strictly inside the (wrong) box.

It’s the same with our current fiscal problems. Our government’s only solution appears to be beggaring the dollar (as in printing more money). This policy is sure to cause dislocation worldwide. It is likely to hurt us even more than others by making things more expensive, killing jobs even further, and reducing our influence abroad.

Some say that this is actually what Obama wants to happen. If it is so, he’s on the right track. If not, he’s barking up the wrong tree. The only thing that can turn things around in the U. S. is not mere smoke and mirrors; but a single-minded emphasis on growth. Growth is the only sane way of absorbing our debt. Yet every policy proposed by this administration so far, without exception, has been is anti-growth. Go figure!

In order to stimulate our economy, we have to, first and foremost, bring back confidence. This would involve primarily an all-out political effort. We have to convince the business community that the government is not out to destroy it. We have to erase uncertainty by stating in plain English what government policy toward business across the board will be going forward. We have to make investment in American businesses attractive. We have to improve the business climate to attract the best minds along with capital from overseas. We have to quit punishing success. We have to reduce taxes. And we have to stop bad-mouthing capitalism.

To turn our economy around, it will require bold, decisive action. This is what Obama promised us during his campaign for the presidency. Thus far, we have seen only small thinking; tinkering on the margins and all of it wrong. Perhaps he’s aware of the Vedic parable which claims to show that ‘every act of ours reverses itself in its results‘. But I doubt it.

When Shankaracharya (Hindu theologian; 8th or 9th Century), was still young, he decided to renounce the world and become a wandering monk. Monks are never allowed to return home. When his mother died, none of her relatives came forward to cremate her body. Shankaracharya then decided to break his oath. As his mother’s body was too heavy for him alone to carry to the pyre by the river, he is said to have cut it up into portable pieces.

He was a man credited for his ability to think outside the box in search for solutions

He would later be credited with the revitalization of Hinduism which had become corrupt and ineffective and Buddhism was rapidly gaining ground. He established four mutts (monastic schools), one in the north, one in the south, east and west of the sub-continent. These still exist today.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Union Jack over Yorktown

Let’s cut to the chase. Islam, as it exists today, is a ‘religion’ (sic) that seeks to either convert or kill infidels. I am unaware of any significant faction of Islam that has come out and set itself in opposition to this. Admittedly, there are some individuals who have publicly stated that they repudiate this policy, but they are then immediately forced into hiding or condemned to languish in some sort of (U.S.) government-sponsored protection program.

As such, strictly speaking, Islam is not a religion but a ruthless mercenary movement that is often exploited by secular enemies to inflict pain on one another. This is where Islam derives its funding and power. If communism should succeed in bringing down the Free World with the help of Islamist extremists, Islam would find itself crushed within the span of less than a decade. Most Islamists are not smart enough to know that they are merely the pawns in a much larger fight for world supremacy.

In India, as soon as a Christian church is built somewhere, within days a mosque springs up within earshot. Often noisy open-air celebration are quickly organized to intrude on Christian high holy day celebrations. The police is brought in to keep things from getting out of hand. Hindu Temples are now closed to non-Hindus because it has been noted that Muslim visitors tend to make a nuisance of themselves. In order to keep from pointing a finger at the troublemakers, any non-Hindu is now prohibited from entering most sacred Hindu shrines.

Islam is not tolerant of other religions. It does not seek to coexist peacefully. In fact, Muslims who renounce Islam are under threat of death.

It is a fact that AQ conducts its terror all over the world under the banner or Islam. Again, no faction of Islam has come forward to denounce AQ’s repeated atrocities in its name.

Islam cannot win militarily. It seeks to achieve its aims through propaganda, terror and threat. In it’s dealings with non-Islamic states, it is permitted - even encouraged - to lie to secure its advantage. Therefore, any agreement with Islamists - signed or secured with a handshake - is not worth spit.

Lastly, all manner of myths have sprung up surrounding the 9/11 attacks on New York’s World trade Center. One is that Bush personally had a hand in it. Shrug. Another is that no Jews died because they were alerted to what was about to happen. Shrug. Let me suggest a third: Nadler mentions that Muslims also died in the attacks. This is not difficult to accept. Islamists, after all, show little regard for their own anywhere in the world. It is a fact that many more Muslims have died since AQ’s reign of terror than non-Muslims. Nadler may also be technically correct because the hijackers also died on 9/11. However, I have heard of no Muslim innocent dying as a result of the 9/11 outrage. A cursory scan of the internet does not lend credibility to the assertion that innocent Muslims died. If any had, I’m sure their families would have been repeatedly trotted out in front of the TV cameras.

I don’t see how the Carmelite Nuns example figures into the argument. What I do see is akin to the Union Jack being raised over Yorktown to presage the war‘s end in favor of the enemy.

Betrayal

When we are first born we are nothing (as well as everything). We are equipped with specific tools chief of which is a sense of identity. It’s noteworthy that the first thing that usually happens is that we are given a name. The child opens its eyes and sees. And all it sees (it thinks) is a part of itself. It is only by learning the names of the people and objects around it that the divide between it and the outside world is established.

From there the child begins to make certain assumptions. He learns to manipulate specific objects - his mother, for instance - to get what he wants. She presumably knows what she must do in order to attend to his needs. He needs to eat; his diapers need to be changed. His dependence on her continues not as demand, but as expectation. It would never occur to him to say, “Thank you.”

The child’s name circumscribes his identity. His first allegiance is to himself (which now includes his parents). He does not see them as separate from himself. Later, as his world view expands, he must determine his own proper place within it.

No matter how complicated it may get, no matter how many paradoxes arise - all due to and resting on false assumptions - the shadow of his first life experience remains: I am (singularly responsible, either through my action or inaction, for) all I see.

Religion derives from identity and the desire to secure for oneself a place within eternity. In this, one’s assumptions become critical. Clearly the lion’s share of one’s efforts go towards achieving and maintaining one’s target position. The time may come when previous alliances and dependencies are no longer useful. These are then jettisoned. Guilt may arise from such acts as abandonment or betrayal that may have become essential to the service of one’s perceived (greater) self. Meanwhile, the shadow of one’s very first assumptions invariably come back to haunt.

Only saints are spared this dilemma. At this juncture ordinary people are faced with a choice: either to recognize and accept their limitations; or to strive for ever greater control on one hand, or utter dependence on the other.

Hinduism recognized this dilemma from the start. It created the caste system within which everybody is assigned their place. The promise of a higher entry into the next life (provided that one adheres honorably to one’s duties) helps the lower casts to endure. Only wise men realize that it is only a matter of appearances; that suffering as well as joy is spread out evenly among all.

In the West every individual is held responsible for his own fate, which (whether one admits it or not) extends to the afterlife. As we are our own severest critics the question of salvation comes into play. Liberals tend to fall victim to ego from which stems the infantile presumption of utter co-dependence with the universe. Therefore, for just one to be saved, all must be saved. Conservatives tend to harbor more modest ambitions. They are content with saving only themselves and perhaps a few others. They also tend to be happier, successful and self-satisfied.

Point of note: Identity drives all. This is why only a man of outside lineage can agree to commit an act of betrayal.