Hatred constricts; hatred corrodes. Hatred feeds on itself. Hatred is first; hatred is blind. Hatred shuns reason. Hatred metastasizes (like cancer). The same is said of love. When a concept segment is bent into a circle, love and hatred share the same point. Love and hatred are the same.
----------------------------------------------
Yet, as hatred leaves hopeless chasms in its wake, love is optimistic. Love confidently bridges all obstacles. The difference between love and hatred, if not material, must then be one of perception alone. Whether one loves or hates is determined by where one is willing to mark the start of time. Love looks toward the future. Hatred marks the beginning with death. Both views are equally passionate in that both inspire action. Both views validate the life force by acknowledging its role in achieving some end. As such, the difference between love and hatred appears to be dependent on one’s disposition towards the future. Love celebrates the eternal; hatred demands just enough time to force an end to something. The antithesis to love and hatred is indifference.
In Albert Camus’ novel, The Stranger, the last sentence reads, “For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” The story is that of a man who unwittingly commits a murder. He is then tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Camus cleverly casts his protagonist as a person without the ability to discern right from wrong; safety from danger, love from lust. He approaches every situation in the manner of a child and reacts to it in the most expeditious way. This novel, though first published in 1942, is almost a precise allegory for the relationship between the West (especially Western Europe) and the Palestinians today. In fact, the author has even seen fit to cast the murder victim as an Arab. In a larger sense, Camus demands accountability for the crime of indifference. Though not explicitly stated, Meursault, the protagonist of The Stranger, cannot expect there to be a sizable crowd at his execution, for he is nobody, and quite undeserving of hatred or of any emotion.
Clearly, the West is invested in neither, the Palestinian nor the Israeli, side of the conflict and quite willing to sacrifice either party just to get the entire annoyance off the table. The intractability of both positions has frustrated any reasonable attempt to identify a compromise, even to the point of forcing consideration of tortured solutions. The media’s reporting of the conflict reflects a vicariously inspired obsession with the depth of Palestinian hatred, which, in contrast to its own cynical indifference, nevertheless tends to give the appearance of being alive.
If a crime is being committed by all this, it cannot be laid at the feet of the Palestinians or the Israelis alone. To do so would be to criminalize policy differences and any number of governments (if not all) would be compelled to face a reckoning. No, the colossal crime as relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be put squarely at the doorstep of western politicians and decision makers - not for appearing to favor one side over another, but - for their profound indifference, allowing them to change their positions with every shift in the political wind while the lives of innocents hang in the balance.
If there are people in the world today, of whom it can be said that they are motivated by hatred alone, it is surely the Palestinians. Free elections have left little doubt that their hatred for Jews trumps every other consideration any reasonable population might be expected to have. To this end, they have affirmed their preparedness even to sacrifice their earthly future.
As soon as Palestinian children learn to listen, they are taught to hate Jews. Golda Meir was once to have said, “When Palestinian parents begin to love their children more than they hate us, there will be peace between us.” In the meantime, Palestinian kids are routinely told to clean their plates thoroughly that they might grow up strong to serve as martyrs (which is another way of saying, fodder) to fuel a group obsession. Jews, in Palestinian schools, are routinely painted in the most grotesque light possible. They are said to drink the blood of babies; sleep with pigs, and the like. No contact with Jews or with those pledged to protect them is ever allowed. Only in a closed society could a myth, like the one about the Jew dog, be perpetuated without fear of being exposed as a ploy to mask the real root of the Palestinian’s wretched condition.
Suffering from the a similar disease, other Islamists in the region have consistently encouraged the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to continue unabated, funding the families of suicide/homicide bombers and other groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They have been successful in regionalizing the conflict with the expectation that their sheer numbers will effectively isolate Israel from the community of nations. Their intent is plain as day. It is a medieval, savage vision that clearly does not deserve inclusion in any catalogue of commonly accepted (civilized) behavior. Yet, the world press consistently condemns Israel’s attempt to limit attacks on its territory by broadcasting images of bloodied Palestinians, while deliberately downplaying the fact of repeated Arab provocation. Is it not obvious by now that if Israel were to unilaterally disarm, withdraw from occupied territories, and tear down its walls, it would be overrun within hours and most of its citizens murdered? Is it not clear, if the opposite were to happen and the Palestinians would stop their provocations, there would be peace and cooperation? Why this bias in the media against calling a spade a spade, that serves only to encourage the Arab’s lethal intent and prolong the agony of this conflict?
I recently read an account in The Hindu (our local paper here in India) of an international conference of newspaper editors and media moguls. Their discussions centered on assigning blame to themselves for not having been more vocal in opposing America’s Iraq adventure in its planning stages. Whereas introspection is always a commendable exercise, I did see a sampling of the roster of those present at the conference. Without exception, these were all people in sympathy with left-wing causes. Not one conservative voice was included in the gathering, prompting the conclusion by some observers that a laudable opportunity was essentially wasted in favor of creating just another platform from which to disseminate political talking points. This shows once again that the media in general harbors a clear political anti-American bias and fights tooth and nail to keep alternative views from being brought up for discussion on the public stage. Hamas - among other such organizations that operate freely and unopposed in any number of trouble spots around the globe - too makes sure that all those under its direct control adhere to the dogma of a singular template. In large parts of the Islamic world today, the inspiration that gives rise to voicing even the suspicion of doubt, (concerning any and all matters) is punishable under sedition statutes. Children are taught early in life never to risk asking questions.
When some shells exploded on a Gaza beach, wounding and killing members of a Palestinian family who were enjoying a picnic by the sea, the press immediately blamed Israel. Israel apologized. It was later found that the wounded, brought to Israeli hospitals for treatment, arrived with shrapnel already having been crudely gouged from their flesh. It seems what really happened was that a Palestinian shell had gone astray, landed on the beach and exploded. The metal in the bodies of the victims, if identified, would have shown the true source of the shelling and a propaganda opportunity would have been lost. The Palestinians are well aware of how to play the sympathies of the western media. In the above example, they were quite certain that not much would be made of their deception, even if discovered. They would be proven right in that assumption.
Clearly, as things now stand, the Arabs can only hope to achieve their objective of driving Israel into the sea is by continuing with their war of attrition. They are counting on sheer exhaustion setting in, particularly in the West, so that Israel would be left to fend for itself. Arab presence abroad has now given them significant leverage to affect the political climate in Western Europe as well as in the United States. Working in consort, primarily with the Communists (who for the time being share similar aims and tactics), their influence has grown to the point of where it can no longer be ignored. This is why we now are reading almost daily of great debates concerning the legal and human rights of the enemy, tying the hands of our soldiers and law enforcement agents into Gordian knots in the process. In the meantime, they continue to operate closed societies within their own borders, keeping their own populations animated by false fear and hatred with their unrelenting cradle-to-grave propaganda campaigns to demonize the Jews as well as other non-Muslims.
What is happening in the Arab world is not unprecedented. Any number of groups have historically resorted to fascist methods to establish and maintain control. The Moguls invading India, destroyed Hindu temples, wantonly killing Hindus in the process. Hindu women needed to be prepared at all times to cover their heads with the ends of their saris and pretend to be Muslim, as Islamic law allows its men to brutalize infidel women any time, any place, without consequence. The Nazis held public book burnings. Pol Pot of Cambodia ordered the killing of anyone who wore glasses, assuming that such people had committed the crime of reading (foreign) books. The Taliban blew up centuries-old Buddhist statues and banned women from school and from working outside the home. Chinese attempts to censor the internet are widely documented. The American Left, having made its home in academia, continues to fights every effort to include conservative views in any serious scholarly evaluation. Their efforts in this regard have already born fruit, launching virtual armies of lockstep lackeys to disseminate anti-American sentiment worldwide.
What would compel a people to deliberately pursue a path that history has shown to end in disaster time and time again? One answer might be ignorance. This may well apply to the Palestinians, as few would deny that they have indeed been kept in squalid ignorance for generations. It would not apply, however, to the Communists who, by all accounts, appear to be among the best-educated people on the planet. Education then too must have its pitfalls. Picture a man who has formally studied history all his life and arrived back at the beginning. He concludes that history was written by the winners of wars and, on this basis, would stipulate that the study of history (as it has been traditionally configured) can be no better than incomplete by half. If he happens to be a professor of history, he would then likely be tempted to deny his students the very same opportunity he himself enjoyed in arriving at his conclusions, thinking he would save them the trouble. This, would also have to be taken as a sign of some degree of elitism having taken possession of the good professor’s mind in that he now actually believes he can predict what other people will be thinking in the future; that there is only one conclusion of substance any of his students could possibly arrive at. Such a leap, besides taunting the boundaries of good sense, also smacks of a dangerous arrogance, a lethal combination that sometimes leads to madness. Having just reasoned himself out of a job, he continues teaching his own version of history that now imposes no structural limits and is apt to include anything from holocaust denial to proclaiming the glories of Stalinist Russia.
It is apparent, that the more tenuously one’s belief system is linked to reality, the more extreme one is apt to act (out) in support of it. As long as there continues to be no consensus among the people of the world that the killing of others is a bad idea (this would include war, suicide, abortion, beheadings, capital punishment, genocide, euthanasia and the like), there are those who will mark the start of their calendars with death. Whereas, the great unwashed recognize the obscenity in the emperor’s nakedness, the so-called 'smart' people – the degreed people, the thinkers, the educators, the writers, the opinion makers, even Meursault (Camus’ hapless protagonist in The Stranger) – all bat it around, giving it a status it doesn’t deserve. (“I’m just not ready yet to have a baby; it would disrupt my lifestyle.”) They succeed only in affording it time to incubate, and to metastasize into a full-blown cancerous condition. (“God, I’ve wasted my life; nobody wants me! I guess it’s too late even to have a baby.”) I use this metaphor in an effort to reach my friends on the left. They have been obsessed with the idea of cancer from the beginning. Well aware of the ferocious intensity with which it consumes a living body (particularly the young), they have been blaming virtually every advance in the past fifty years for causing it. I might just as well have said “evil” but this word, like “God”, is not one the Left is comfortable with. In fact, it too has been stricken from the academe-accredited lexicons because it pre-supposes a value system that dares to be a bit too cozy with what has been traditionally referred to as morality.
As it is tempting to attribute human qualities to God or to animals, it is equally tempting to attribute human attributes to evil. Evil (like God and animals) does not require a reason for doing what it does. As such, it cannot be reasoned with. If it is deemed to pose a danger, it must be cut out, defeated. Unlike communism, which still claims (albeit deceptive) positions that can be exposed in debate, radical Islam has been allowed to fester within hermetically sealed societies for far too long. It has grown too ponderous; too intractable. It is now at a point where, not unlike cancer, it poses a threat for all, including itself. Now, cloaking itself in an eschatological vision, it proclaims a thousand years of peace with the coming of the 12th imam who, it is said, will only appear after every last Jew has been killed. It can no longer be assumed that the imams embracing such prophecies are reasonable men who engage in radical rhetoric simply to gain concessions. While, the whole thing may have started as such - or even served fitfully to define a scapegoat to deflect charges of corruption in the home court - it has long since ceased to serve any justifiable function. As we have seen, they have been encouraged in their lunacy by the West’s relatively weak response. Support on the “Arab street”, however, is total as anyone even skeptical of the foil hat mentality is threatened with death. This is why moderate voices are barely inaudible within the Islamic community.
Outside academia, the arts and the media, free speech is still alive and well in America today. It is perhaps the most obvious and potent of all our freedoms that we can exhibit to the world. Why do we take such passionate joy in criticizing our leaders, our country, even ourselves? Because we can do so without consequence to ourselves! Try doing the same thing in China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or in any other two-bit dictatorship around the world; you’ll end up in jail or worse. Ridiculing authority has always been great sport. It inflates anemic egos. The cure, however, is never permanent, requiring ever-higher doses of divisive, hate-filled diatribes to fill the endless void. At some point, however, the audience no longer laughs, as was the case with the shock jock-inspired spectacle of two people having live sex on the radio inside St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.
In the West, we protest and criticize authority out of sheer boredom, or simply in an effort to bury the bone of our own pathetic insignificance. Protesters marching on the streets of New York or Berlin, who are interviewed and asked why they are protesting, seldom give coherent answers. Most do not even remember to articulate their slogans correctly. For them it is a lark, a happening, an opportunity to get face time on TV.
It is quite different in the Arab world. Here the people protest to give voice to their wounds. Instead of blaming their governments (or themselves), they have been taught to divert their fury at Israel and America. Their anger is potent and real. It is not for sport or amusement as it is in the West. It stems from a deep-seated pain; the pain of a people who see the world passing them by; the pain of a people who have come to view mere existence as the ultimate insult to their dignity. When a leader emerges who promises salvation in reckless flailing - even culminating in death - it is perceived as deadly serious. He is bound to be received as a Messiah.
Some say the only constant is change. Clearly, we are now different from the first signs of terrestrial life that crawled up out of the slime. Clearly, lifestyles have changed over the centuries. Just in the past 40 years, the way we fight, communicate and travel has changed as advances in technology have largely outpaced our ability to fully appreciate their consequences. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect that it is within our power to curb this momentum towards modernity and beyond, no matter what happens politically. We talked about the swinging pendulum of history; how no nation has ever been able to remain a dominant force. We must assume this too to be a truism. As such, we cannot expect the present world order to continue indefinitely. Indeed, we are already witnessing signs of our own devaluation as significant numbers of people eagerly anticipate a new day and applaud each fresh defeat and embarrassment heaped on America. Only today, the challenge is coming from those who seek to curb human expression either by force or by death. These are the hallmarks of weakness and will never claim ultimate victory. Yet, make no mistake, in the short run, every freedom-loving nation remains vulnerable and must be prepared to defend itself. The Chinese as well as the Russians continue to be firmly entrenched in the communist camp. Their relatively recent headlong plunge into embracing the principles of capitalism should not be construed as capitulation to Western values. They see themselves simply as weaving the rope by which they one day hope to strangle the principles of faith and freedom in the name of egalitarianism. Their aggressive stance with regard to funding their militaries, coupled with their continued support of rouge regimes should give the West pause. By giving tacit approval to the demonization of both Israel and America by ideological kin, Western media have been able to convince significant numbers of folks that if these two nations were not to exist, all would be right with the world. Again, this ignores the historical record by refusing to recognize a second truism: that, as long as there are politicians to exploit them, political divides - like waves in the ocean - will never cease. As such, there will always be discord. Even if we (or they) were to capitulate to every current challenge, or even if we (or they) would win every current battle, we (or they) would still not find ourselves excused from tomorrow’s conflict. Victory is always fleeting, after all. It belongs to those left standing after the dust has settled; to those who remain undaunted (like Sisyphus) by the often thankless task of maintaining their advantage; to those who manage to stay confident with a clear vision of what is sacred to guide them; to those who remain willing to fight for what they believe.
The same can be said of the Islamists, of course. And their standing in the game would be laudable were it not for the embarrassing fact that their energy and passion have been hijacked by the Communists to further a cause that runs contrary to everything they stand for. They think they’re being clever in scouring mental institutions for people who may not be bright enough to know what happens when you strap on a suicide belt and pull the chord. They have yet to realize that their entire movement is the victim of a similar deception; that they will be ruthlessly crushed once the Communists have free reign.
By studying history, we may be able to gather a listing of factors common to dominant powers at various stages of their existence. We might be able to determine in which phase of development or devolution we ourselves may be. Time would likely not be a determining factor as the speed with which change occurs has demonstrably increased. One hundred years today might well translate into one thousand years, a thousand years ago. However, there are other signs: civil wars; foreign invasions; economic distress; all serve as bullet points that mark the milestones of history. It is the degree to which a nation is willing to identify and confront threats that either adds to or subtracts years from its potency. Its policies ultimately depend on the mood of the electorate, which will choose or tolerate leaders according to its will (or the lack thereof).
It is essential that symptoms such as cynicism, corruption or general malaise not be interpreted as causes for the demise of a culture. Neither can optimism, morality or efficiency in any way be regarded as reasons for its perceived ascendancy. These are merely the signs of a particular stage of the cycle in which a culture may find itself. It is ever tempting to treat only the symptoms without regard to the underlying condition, which may simply be exhaustion (due to old age). One cannot whip an exhausted dog into the frenzy of a fight. Neither can one expect a virile dog not to accept the challenge.
We hear daily about how Americans no longer want to do certain types of work, how we must import masses of immigrants to tend our lawns and build our highways. The same trend extends to the higher end jobs that require math, science and computer skills. My work used to take me to numerous office complexes, run by high tech companies and financial institutions. It is getting so one hardly encounters Caucasian faces anymore. Instead, one increasingly sees Asians working the levers of our economic infrastructure. Last year, I attended the commencement exercises of my (Indian) wife’s son at a college in New Jersey. As the names of the graduates were read, I came to realize I could count the traditionally American names (like Anderson and Johnson) on the fingers of one hand. This does not alarm me as it does some. There are so many jobs needed to run the largest economy in the world. Our own educational system stands so degraded; it can only prepare individuals for a fraction of these. I know that a significant percentage of today’s foreign graduates will elect to stay on in America and become good citizens like the Germans, the Irish and the Poles did before them.
Relatively open immigration policy has become the lifeblood for our nation. Many agree that without the foreigners here, our economy would collapse. Because of our sensitivity, sharpened by decades of “political correctness” indoctrination and constant litigation by the ACLU, we only give lip service to screening immigrants effectively. Therefore, those who would do us harm are bound to slip in. These, unfortunately, are the ones who will grab the headlines. Our own failing in this regard should not be used as an excuse to suspend our tradition of welcoming immigrants with open arms and hearts, a policy that has always served us admirably in the past.
When grass root sentiment flared within the nation demanding for the government to seal our southern border, people could not believe that the President would fail to respond. Even those within Bush’s own party were baffled by his silence. Though normally in support of open borders, the media, sensing a weakness in the President’s (non) position, lost little time in portraying him as insensitive, corrupt, and/or stupid. Never once was any consideration given to the likely consequences were the President to speak out publicly. Mexican elections in which the Communist candidate posed a serious challenge were just months away. Clearly, by openly proposing measures to keep illegals (primarily Mexicans) from entering the country, he might have handed the Mexican Left the advantage it needed to win power. Clearly, Bush and Fox had discussed this privately. Quite aside from the fact that the American Left would have applauded a Communist victory in Mexico (just as it applauds Castro, Chavez, Mugabe and the rest), considerably more in terms of positive cooperation in any number of areas between our two neighboring countries lay at stake. His critics were well aware that the President had only silence to counter their accusations. It was an entirely predictable tactic by the opposition. Time and time again, they would bank on his inability to speak out on sensitive matters to sling their dirt unimpeded, knowing that the press would eagerly follow their lead.
Once the confidence in a leader has eroded, the nation opens itself up to blindly pursuing any crackpot policies that may be severely at odds with its over-all goals and interests. Clearly, not everyone can be expected to understand all the repercussions of any given public pronouncement by the head of state. But everyone can be expected to put their trust in a leader who has been duly scrutinized and elected. My foreign-born wife, working competently at our local library was confronted by a woman who refused her help because she did not agree with the idea of outsourcing. She made a scene, embarrassing herself and the others who witnessed it. The director of the library, who had made it his policy that the customer is always right, apparently never realized that he himself was in effect stoking the fires of discord (albeit in a small way) by sporting an anti-Bush bumper sticker on his car.
The Bible advises its readers to obey their leaders so that leadership would not become a burden to them. (Hebrews 13:17) It understands that governance on a global scale entails a far wider grasp of issues than what can be reasonably expected of the electorate whose relatively narrow social and economic concerns tend to dominate their attention. So too, the failure of the Dubai port deal would prove to be a foreign policy disaster for the U. S. in that it prevented a demonstration of trust between two nations with similar interests. The fact that the AE sits smack in the middle of the Arab world would have made it even sweeter. But no, the word had gone out that every Bush initiative must be defeated for the Democrats to win the next election. The press was called upon to exploit a latent prejudice against Arabs. The population would be riled up to oppose the deal. Polls were taken and broadcast widely. Politicians on both sides of the aisle would quickly jump aboard a wave of manufactured public sentiment. Reading the tea leaves, the Dubai businessmen took themselves out of the running rather than face a humiliating showdown in the American congress - and an opportunity to build a bridge was lost forever.
One of the reasons given for scuttling the Dubai ports deal was that the United Emirates do not recognize the existence of Israel. What Arab nation does so without peril? Is it not the essence of effective diplomacy for a nation to protect itself by voicing its public stance while pursuing its vital interests quietly and in private? Why put oneself in danger by uttering words that are certain to inflame the sentiments of unhinged neighbors? It is utter lunacy for a small Arab country to publicly support Israel in this day and age. By doing so, it would immediately set itself up as a target for extremists. Similarly, Bush obviously thought it wise not to inflame Mexican sentiments by attacking their government’s policy of encouraging its citizens to pursue job opportunities north of the border - a policy, all agree, acts as a safety valve in the effort to maintain social and economic stability (primarily in Mexico) - at a critical time in that nation’s history.
Even so, much damage was done by American media attention focused on this particular issue. Bush’s standing was diminished (and that was the point, after all), and the margin of victory in Mexico was slim, lending strength to Obrador’s claim that the election was stolen. It would subject our neighbor to the south to endless strikes, demonstrations, protests and the like, tactics the left unfailingly engages in when things do not go exactly their way.
----------------------------------------------
The condemned man was brought into the courtyard a few minutes before noon. It was stifling hot as the ancient walls blocked any breeze there might have been. Many of us, wearing our dress uniforms, were beginning to feel faint as we leaned heavily on our rifles. The prisoner too was clearly unhappy. One could hear his muffled protests through the black cloth he wore wrapped around head. After he had been chained to the post, one of the guards removed it. Despite myself, I looked at him. He was silent now but blinking hard in an effort to adjust his eyes to the midday glare. It was evident he was trying to recognize our faces. I looked away, ashamed.
He might have been anyone of us. We all harbored the same sentiments. We all went to the same schools; worshipped at the same mosques. We all hated the Jews.
Ahmed had volunteered to carry out a suicide mission in Jerusalem. When he reached the restaurant, he saw it had decent crowd. He smiled and thanked Allah for offering him the opportunity to make his sacrifice a worthy one.
Moments later, he was inside, ready to detonate his vest. He positioned himself near a table of eight, three of whom were children. He felt certain that all the eight would die and was hoping for some additional corpses on the other side; though, conceding that his own body would shield these from the full force of the blast.
When the vest failed to detonate, Ahmed grew enraged. He drew out his knife and fell upon the nearest person. It turned out to be the mother of the children. He managed to slit her throat before being subdued by the guard who had temporarily left his post by the door to light a cigarette in the adjoining alley.
Ahmed’s trail took seven years, his sentencing another five. Today was the day of his execution.
We were ordered to line up and face the condemned. I tried to look everywhere but at the target. I wondered vaguely why the entire wall was pockmarked with shot. As far as I knew, the condemned were always chained to the same post and executed one at a time.
There were twelve shooters in our line. The sergeant only carried a sidearm. One of our rifles held a blank. In this way, no one would ever know for certain which one of us delivered the fatal bullet.
The order was given to aim and fire. My eyes grew moist just as I was about to line up the barrel. Already, I heard shots. I pulled the trigger despite my inability to see clearly. The blast made me stagger. Instinctively I knew my gun was not the one that held the blank.
We were ordered to turn to the left and march single-file out of the courtyard. A small wooden door stood open to receive us. Inside it was cool. We stood around like dumb herd animals, clutching the hot barrels of our guns. Then, through the closed wooden door, the one through which we had entered, we heard another: the report of a single discharge.
Showing posts with label Left Hook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Left Hook. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
V. Israel: the canary in the coal mine
The following was written during the first half of W's administration:
Whenever one hears the phrase America’s policies in connection with some criticism of her, or in justifying an attack on some installation or embassy, it is usually shorthand for America’s support of Israel. Israel has been facing proportionally a far greater existential threat than virtually any other nation on earth. This is because of its relative small size and its close proximity to openly hostile neighboring states. It has been likened to a canary in the coal mine, a comparison which, now more than ever, is not lost on any American administration that takes its responsibility to protect its own citizenry seriously.
It must be assumed that the leadership of any nation operating on a global platform is privy to a lot of sordid intrigue that the rest of us would find difficult to stomach. Supposing then, that credible intelligence had existed that Iraq (or Iraq in conjunction with others) was about to launch an attack on Israel. The information might even have come initially from the Mossad itself.
Any U.S. President would then be obliged to consider his options, given the treaty obligations that exist between the two nations. The first question asked would likely center on Israel’s ability to launch a successful preemptive strike. How would the Arab world react? The action would hardly be unprecedented. What happened previously? What, if anything, has changed in the meantime? What would be the effect on Israel’s peace prospects with its Palestinian neighbors? The answers are all too obvious. Worst-case scenarios would definitely play a key role, considering the systemic volatility of the region.
The next question would likely involve Israel’s ability to bounce back from an initial, possibly nuclear or biological, attack. Could any nation morally justify sitting idly by, knowing that an attack involving the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of its citizens is immanent, simply to secure an iron-clad excuse (for world consumption) to retaliate in its aftermath? What would be the effect on the world economy should Middle East oil flows be compromised in an all out conflagration?
Given many such considerations, the obvious conclusion would dictate preemptive intervention by the U.S. on Israel’s behalf.
Only there is a problem: The public may not be ready to subscribe to the spillage of American blood and treasure for the Jewish State. This debate, if initiated, might not yield expected results. The President, mindful of the risk, would then wisely decide not to expose the potentially ugly underbelly (anti-Semitism) of something that should never again be exposed by any civilized nation.
He would then attempt to defend his initiative by seeking a secondary pretext that would presumably sit better with the American people. He would note that Iraq had ignored a whole host of U.N. resolutions. In this way, he would also hope to garner broader world support. He would point to atrocities committed by the Iraqi leadership, not only against its enemies but also against its own people, just to drive the point that these were indeed bad actors. Finally, he would hearken back to a frequent mantra initiated by his popular predecessor, repeating that the Iraqi regime may already be in possession of weapons of mass destruction (which, by inference, could then potentially be used against America itself).
Committing the lives of American’s sons and daughters is never easy. The American President would have had to feel confident that the military was up to the job. He was, of course, assured that Saddam Hussein could indeed be removed without much of a fight. Once the dictator was toppled, there was no reason to believe that Iraq’s people would be anything but grateful to the Americans for having liberated them from the clutches of a brutal tyrant. In the aftermath, Iraq would be promised massive amounts of American aid to rebuild its neglected infrastructure in anticipation of private foreign investment that would launch the country into the modern age. In this way, with two presumably prosperous and well functioning democracies (Afghanistan had already been slated for similar treatment) occupying Iran’s flanks, the Iranian people would see prosperity gaining beyond its own borders and rise up against their own increasingly insular and regressive government.
In effect, the domino theory had been revived by The White House in an effort to re-configure the entire Middle East into a friendly partner. It was hoped that, with its people gainfully engaged in commerce with the West, they would lose interest in calling for Israel’s destruction. It was an ambitious plan that was thought to be in the best interests of everyone concerned – a win-win proposition - yielding handsome dividends notably also to those with little of substance to contribute beyond applause who nevertheless rely on the smooth flow of cheap oil to fuel and expand their consumer economies. The lynchpin of the operation would be the demonstration of America’s willingness to use its military might to keep all the players in line. Its ultimate success, however, would depend on all the potential beneficiaries standing united against those who would continue to agitate and disrupt any progress towards achieving peace in the region.
The warning signs, however, would come early. Even though, the majority of the American people were in support of the plan initially, the international community, with few exceptions, would balk at the prospect of military action. They were not the ones attacked on 9/11 and hence did not feel they had a dog in the fight. Furthermore, they feared that their own Islamic populations would turn against them. Additionally, some of the nations approached for support, would find themselves enmeshed in a lucrative criminal scheme (oil-for-food scandal). An invasion, resulting in regime change, would likely put an end to the gravy train and prove embarrassing to high-positioned individuals who might have gotten their hands dirty. Finally, any nation, even suspecting that the security of Israel was what was really at stake, would for this reason alone withhold its support, as anti-Semitism has once again reached a crescendo - worldwide.
How has this happened? All my life, I have been hearing the phrase, “never again” in connection with the holocaust. I thought that what had been done to the Jews during Hitler’s time had been universally condemned. Certainly, enough books have been written; enough movies made; enough museums built to chronicle the outrage. Most people nowadays just turn away, having had their fill of this never-ending litany of sorrows thrust upon them. Add to this the perception - fueled largely by the Arab world - that wherever trouble resides, Israel is never far behind.
In fact, what the planners of Operation Iraqi Freedom failed to recognize was how effective the purveyors of anti-Israeli propaganda – who immediately began to smell a rat - had been in leeching their venom into Western academe and media via an undeniably determined Islamic presence inside a whole host of presumed allies. Once again, predictably, the utter intractability of the anti-Israeli argument would strike a responsive chord with moderate elements within the bulk of these countries who would first attempt to mediate the debate, but would ultimately end up converted.
There have always been holocaust deniers, people who, for their own reasons, find it difficult to accept the scope of the carnage; but such views have, in the past, been largely dismissed and, therefore, have remained on the margins. In some countries, holocaust denial was criminalized by legal statute. Today, we find holocaust denial vigorously promoted even by elected heads of state. Ironically, we also find that large segments of the world’s Islamic population would feel no discomfort whatsoever at the prospect of some version of a holocaust repeating itself.
What is the source of such hatred for a people who have done nothing but exist, often contributing far more than their expected share to the human experience? Permit me, at this point, to recount a couple of personal, admittedly peripheral anecdotes: There are several churches in the town where I have lived in America. They all coordinate out-reach programs for the poor; they run day-care facilities; and they organize social functions for their members. During summer, when many people opt for spending time at the shore, these same churches open for Sunday worship on a rotating basis in order to guarantee a decent turnout for the pastor scheduled to conduct the service that week.
Another tradition involves inviting the members of one church to another to interact socially. Generally, the host congregation provides food for such occasions. My mother has been active in one such church for many years. She tells of being invited by the congregation of the Jewish temple for bagels and cream cheese. She has bad teeth and said she had trouble chewing the bagels (as these must have been purchased too far in advance). Still, the outing for her and the others of her circle proved congenial.
Wishing to reciprocate, her group invited the Jewish congregation to their church. They were told that this would not be possible as many in the Jewish congregation adhered to strict dietary rules and would not be able to partake of the food offered.
No problem! The Presbyterians were more than willing to go out and have the meal brought in by certified kosher caterers. The Jewish group still raised objections, claiming that any meal eaten in a place where dietary rules were previously not strictly observed would be unacceptable.
The blue-haired ladies of my mother’s circle just shook their heads. For some with German surnames old wounds were aggravated. They had hoped that time would have made them immune. All agreed that the overture was lost. Despite all best intentions, the event was not to be.
Here in India I have on occasion been denied access to certain Hindu Temples. In Kerala, for example, there is said to be a colossal golden Vishnu reclining on the serpent of eternity. There are three doors, each one, when open, reveals a different part of the deity. Once a year, all the doors are thrown open and Vishnu appears complete, in full splendor. My wife told me about having visited the temple regularly as a child while growing up in Trivandrum. I too so wanted to see it, but when we arrived there we were told that only Hindus were allowed to enter. I felt cheated. Then it was explained to me that this was a way to keep those away who would show disrespect to the Hindu religion by joking or laughing or making crude comments in the presence of powerful gods, represented by the idols. It was also an attempt to prevent vandalism. I felt the anger rising within me. “Why, I would never even think of doing anything like that,” I blurted. “But there are others who would,” I was told. “And you can guess who they are.” Now I understood why they were screening grandmothers and babies at airports.
Unlike the Hindus, the Jewish ladies had nothing to fear from the Presbyterian Lady’s Circle. They would have been shown the utmost courtesy. Their refusal to participate reciprocally in the commonly accepted social pantomime was sheer and utter bloody-mindedness.
---------------------------------------
Driving through the town of Lakewood, New Jersey, any time of day - any day of the week - one sees orthodox Jews of all shapes and sizes dressed in black suits, white shirts, and wearing funny, wide-brimmed hats, nervously dodging traffic on foot, peyots and tzitzis flying. The rest of the town’s population is mostly black. The chief-of-police maintains an uneasy truce between these two disparate groups, which are somehow destined to live side by side (as is also the case in New York’s Crown Heights section, which frequently finds itself the subject of news bulletins following some public disturbance or another). Lakewood is located along Route 9, a major truck route running north and south (commercial vehicles are prohibited on the Parkway, which runs parallel with Rt. 9). The burly truckers all giggle amongst themselves whenever they happened to be driving through the town, venturing their opinions about inbreeding and ovens.
There is a lovely lake at the south end of the town that has a boardwalk built part way around it. There, the orthodox matriarchs are seen parading their daughters in the benevolent evening light. It is quite certain that not one of their husbands ever took up a hammer or saw to contribute to the construction of this boardwalk - though they may well have given money at arm’s length, as is their tendency to maintain at a distance.
-------------------------------------------
There is always a suspicion of the bird that does not conform to the flock as in Jerzey Kosinski’s, “The Painted Bird”, a novel based on a game eastern European boys used to play between the wars. It involved capturing a bird and painting it some garish color before releasing it once again. Its mates would then find it and peck at it - preferably while still in flight (from the boys’ point of view) - until mortally wounded, it would come crashing spectacularly to the ground.
Someone once said that the world has never forgiven the Jews for introducing a judgmental God into the mix. Compounding matters is the arrogance suggested when a people refer to themselves as the chosen. A good number of Jews themselves have abandoned their faith and struck out on their own. Now no longer shackled by strict moral codes and intrusive ritual, many have succeeded in achieving success in secular arenas, as in the arts, the sciences, as well as in politics. By their considerable influence, they have been able to secure the backing of the world’s most powerful military machine in support of their (mostly) secular democratic experiment: Israel.
Those Jews most vehement in their rejection of religion – their own, as well as those of others - have managed to author and support a political system that first and foremost strikes any deity from the human heart. In their view, the Zionist state commits two sins simultaneously: first, by allowing the religious component to flourish; and, second, by insisting on legally defined borders (as opposed to their ideal of open migration). They do not support the Jewish state and are fiercely dedicated to its demise. As we have seen in the previous chapter, such sentiments remain attractive to any number of left-leaning groups who continue to plot America’s own abdication with near-fanatical zeal. We can no longer fail to suspect that, for radical left-wing atheists, Communism has become a substitute religion, embracing a comprehensive (albeit shallow) worldview complete with sins (littering), sacraments (abortion), and the obligation to proselytize. In addition, they all fervently anticipate a second coming of sorts, when all the world’s people will live under a single (red) banner. In order for this to happen, they believe, the great Satan of inequity (also known as America) must first be dethroned. It is they, who are now driving the wedge of division between us, wishing to see us buckle under the weight of our own debate as we confront a whole host of challenges at home and abroad. As pertains to radical Islam’s bid for power specifically, their intent to aid and abet this enemy has become abundantly clear. It is not that they necessarily support the terrorist’s fanatical vision. The fact that it can inflict damage on America is what remains attractive to them.
Until 1948, never having had a permanent patch of earth to develop and call their own, the Jewish people have perfected the art of cultivating the mind no matter where they might have found themselves. Harry, a high school friend of mine, a Jew, used to break out in hives every time our school issued reports. He was an ordinary kid like the rest of us. It’s just that he lived in the good part of town and had a tennis court in his yard. (The rest of us had to make do with badminton nets.) Another friend, Todd, would run into him years later by sheer coincidence at the Cairo train station of all places.
It was obvious that Harry’s parents put pressure on him to excel. This trait may well have applied to the parents of most Jewish children at that time (as it is generally acknowledged to apply to Asians today). As such, their consistently well-honed mental skills have landed them, in disproportionate numbers, in positions of leadership. Here in India, for example, Israeli firms have helped to introduce a type of farming that is possible even on semi-arid land. As a result, even the poorest of the poor here now have access to fresh fruits and vegetables year round. India has also teamed with Israel to develop desalinization projects, vitally important in this part of the globe where aquifers are being fouled at an alarming rate due to overuse. This kind of cooperation, supported by better-than-average proficiency in the academic arts by the peoples of both nations, habitually leads to progress. It is indicative of populations seeking to embrace the future with hope and optimism.
Contrast the Indian approach to what has occurred in Gaza. When the Israelis withdrew, evacuating their settlements, they also left behind fully functioning greenhouse technologies. The first thing the Palestinians did was to smash the greenhouses and bring in rockets to prolong a fight they had already won.
It is clear that those who shun compromise can only expect their enemies to do likewise. The Palestinians and their allies demand nothing less than Israel’s total and complete eradication. Israel demands to remain a viable political entity on land ceded to them legally by the United Nations. No common ground exists between these two positions. Any third party that thinks it may have a solution to this conundrum is not living in reality. On the other hand, few people have the stomach for what must eventually happen. Were this case to go before a human court (with the power to enforce its decision), one of the sides would be forced to capitulate. A Western court would likely give the nod to Israel (though this is, as of this writing, no longer certain), whereas an Arab court would reduce Israel to a barrel in which fish are shot at will. As neither decision is likely to favor consensus, the status quo will be allowed to fester until new demographic realities can dictate solutions that are beyond dispute.
A divine court would simply look at the existing balance of power and base its determination on that basis alone. Chief among its considerations would be an evaluation of the passion either side is able to generate in support of its objective. In these days of ennui-based indecision, military power alone cannot determine the outcome to any such conflict because it would have to be used unreservedly as to have any practical effect. Israel would have to go nuclear, while the Palestinians would have to scale Israel’s walls in unprecedented numbers. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have thus far shown any inclination to go all out, and use every advantage at their disposal. However, with the nuclear option gaining on the Arab side, things might soon change.
All they have essentially done thus far is talk. While Israel has announced its intentions to hold the fort by building a wall, Palestinians have held elections, the results of which underscored their own commitment to drive Israel into the sea. They have shown ample willingness to sacrifice even their children in order to achieve that goal. For a world, only concerned with oil to fuel its economies, this may be enough to gravitate towards a policy of appeasement, thus tipping the balance in favor of the side that appears most determined. We have watched a steady escalation of the tensions between these two neighbors, from the occasional Palestinian suicide bomber slipping through the border, to a daily exchange of rocket fire, to full military incursions across internationally sanctioned boundaries. At some point, mere containment of hostilities will cease to be an option. At this writing, Palestinians have already once broken through the border into Egypt. How long can their border with Israel remain secure?
The irritant in all this has always been Israel’s physical presence in the Middle East. Were Israel to disappear overnight, the region would simply revert to what it had been all along: a kettle of feuding tribes. No longer would Israel serve as a focus, uniting all of these under a single green banner. Both America and Europe, seen as being too far away as to pose a threat to Middle Eastern chaos, would recede in importance and be left to their own devices. It seems, the mere proximity of infidels is what goads Arabs into engaging their seemingly boundless capacity to hate. As it would be unwise to place one’s king into an adjacent square of an opposing queen (as in chess), it was perhaps equally unwise to establish the nation of Israel in the Middle East.
As good men struggle to find chessboard solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as well as others), even invoking the names of their chessboard gods to help them guide their decisions, only the ultimate reality of the perfectly balanced moment - that is able to calculate the precise consequence of every action, past, present and future - knows the eventual outcome to any situation. Unburdened by human prejudice and desire, it remains the final arbiter assigned to sort through the chaos of human political rivalry and betrayal.
---------------------------------------------
Still, the President would push on. He would go it alone, if he had to. His faith assured him that every human heart yearns for freedom and for the opportunity to pursue its bliss. In his mind, there was no place for dictators who run nations solely for their own amusement. Initially, things went according to plan. Hussein’s forces were defeated in record time and the people came out in droves to welcome their liberators.
What he had not counted on was that the Iraqi people would continue to be under threat from their own religion; that the mere presence of infidels (non-Muslims) in the country would act like a magnet for people from all over the region seeking only to kill and destroy in order to satisfy some religiously inspired jihad. Who might have foreseen that the Iraqis, at first well disposed towards their liberators, would themselves become targets; that brother would be made to turn against brother and all hell would break loose.
The President had also not counted on popular support eroding at home. In the past, politics had always stopped at the water’s edge. Not with this President! Democrats decided en masse to summarily bock every move he would contemplate, foreign or domestic. No alternate positions would need be advanced, as the strategy was designed solely to make the President look bad. Democrats were fully invested in America’s failure on any number of fronts, thinking that this would increase their chances in future elections. Unmindful of the precedent set, they would be proven right.
The mainstream press, desperately wanting Democrats back in power (if for no other reason than to flex its muscle in denial of declining influence), would attack him relentlessly. His considerable success with regard to the U.S. (and, hence the world’s) economy would deliberately go unreported. His efforts to reach out to Democrats, offering them a policy voice, were cast as defeats. No Democrat would be interested in working with the President. They were only here to say “no” with resounding unanimity. The press would march in lock step, giving voice to any petty crackpot capable of putting two sentences together, the first being, “Bush sucks.”
As I write this, America is preparing for mid-term elections. Conventional wisdom has the Republicans losing control of both Houses. If this were to happen, the partisanship would likely only increase. The Democrats, buoyed by their victories can be counted on to overreach. For one thing, the Democrats would want to begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush; this, simply a continuation of their already blatant campaign to criminalize policy differences. In addition, they would also attempt to bring back the fairness doctrine, which would effectively take conservative voices off the air. These all are things the American people themselves - roughly 50% of whom are conservative - will not allow to let stand.
Just how a newly configured Washington would respond to the Islamic threat is anybody’s guess. So far, no serious policy position other than cut and run in Iraq has been articulated by any Democrat of national standing. If such a policy were indeed actively pursued, it would likely unleash a civil war in that country and plunge the entire Middle East into a firestorm. It would affect America too in that the flow of oil supplies would likely be disrupted. Insofar as America has no plan B with regard to its energy needs, its economy would grind to a virtual halt. Israel would be sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. The Chinese would take Taiwan; North Korea would make its move to take the South.
I once wrote an e-mail to John Loftus, a Democrat and regular contributor to The John Batchelor Show (radio program), whose thoughtful analysis of events, particularly in the Middle East, I respected. I asked if he was not at all concerned at the prospect of John Kerry winning the election. He replied that both Bush and Kerry were aware of the facts on the ground; that both men would likely respond to events similarly. This view certainly could not be gleaned from press reports. It got me to thinking, that Loftus might be right after all; that the President of the United States (or of any country) is merely a figurehead; that any nation always does what is in its best interest regardless of who voices (or, as in Bush’s case, does not voice) the policy. If this is indeed so, then America will always be number one; Israel will remain its best ally in the Middle East; the Arabs will continue to sell oil; and the Communists will forever cement their status as also-rans, despite persistent press reports to the contrary. Now and then, perfectly decent men will be sacrificed for sport on the altar of public opinion, as has been demanded by pagan ritual since long before the thief, Barabbas, gained his freedom so that Christ could be crucified.
I lack confidence in my ability to read my tea leaves precisely. As I see it, there appear to be just three possible outcomes to our present geo-political puzzles. One, the Islamists will take over the world and force everyone to submit to shariat law. Should this happen, there would be one thousand years of peace (as the Islamists themselves predict) as no one will be permitted to oppose them. This scenario, however, is not likely to develop, as neither the Communists nor the capitalists would tolerate the religious element inherent in Islam for long. Two, the West will have buckled under the twin pressures of Islam and the effects of its own decadence, allowing the Communists to simply walk in. In this case, there too would be a thousand years of peace (or absence of conflict) as; once again, no one would be allowed to deviate from the State-proscribed program. They would be ruthless in eradicating Islam and any other religion that does not conform to their Marxist template. The thousand years of peace would be accompanied by something akin to the dark ages as no progress will be made in any field except in the construction of Gulags and re-education centers. Three, the West will prevail, but lacking the discipline to act decisively, the status quo will remain. There will be a thousand years of low-level conflicts around the world as well as intense political drama. No leader in the West or elsewhere has yet emerged to take the reigns decisively. Should something happen such as another 9/11 or worse, it is possible that the people will begin to rally around someone who shows signs of having a credible plan to actually tackle some issues. Realistically speaking, only the West has the resources to accomplish whatever it wants. What is lacking at present is conviction.
In any case, whatever happens (or does not happen) to Israel in the meantime, should give a pretty fair indication of where we are headed. Should Israel be left to the wolves, the implications for the West would be grim. It would mark the beginnings of a slide toward irrelevance. It would signal the wolf pack that America has been severely wounded; that the time is right to move in and strike the fatal blow. Should the Israeli-Palestinian issue remain unresolved, the current situation will continue (and we all know what that’s been like). Should Israel emerge a clear winner in the Middle East, the future of the U.S. as strongman will remain assured. The Chavez’s and Castro’s of the world would continue to bark and bite at the ankles, but their efforts would fall into the category of sideshow. Eventually they would lapse into irrelevance.
A lot of what happens will depend on Israel itself. Should Israel lose hope, and should America be unable to reassure her convincingly, all bets are off. Israel’s partnership with America is vital for the viability of both nations. This is why I posited my remarks at the beginning of this chapter as I did.
----------------------------------------------
There’s a man living in my house who wants to kill me. I know this because he has tried it many times before and is always openly talking about it. I’ve had to put him in a box for my own protection. I give him food and water – all the essentials; I even promised I would let him go if he abandons his quest to rob me of my life.
Now, this man is claiming that his family is starving because he can’t go out and work. I reiterate that all he would have to do is give up his lethal intentions. He refuses.
His family has now taken it upon itself to slander my name in the village. They say I am a monster for letting them starve. Self-appointed human rights groups hold rallies almost daily just outside my gate, shouting the vilest slogans. (I’ve had to move my own family into the rear quarters so they can go about their business undisturbed.) Never is my own right to live in peace considered a legitimate reason for what I’ve been forced into doing.
The man in the cage believes that because I am in the position to imprison him, I am the one who is powerful and, hence, accountable for all that happens. He sees himself as my victim. As “victim”, he boasts, he is always blameless. He also knows that those of the village will always support the underdog and view his suffering as heroic – even saintly. All my protestations to the contrary have no impact.
In a world that believes that might is right, I am beginning to doubt my own moral position in this matter. Perhaps I should free him and offer my breast to his knife. Then he would suffer first-hand the contradictions inherent in possessing power. Would his murderous mind even appreciate the lesson?
Maybe I think too much. Maybe the understanding of power is precisely that which diminishes it. Perhaps I should set him free - and then sic my dogs on him. The world will howl but, conscience or no conscience, I’d still be alive.
The other day, he let it slip that any formal agreement between him and me would mean very little in any case; as he would not feel bound by anything he might be inclined to promise me. Though, I have always suspected it, I was grateful to hear it from his lips. It opened up the possibility that he wasn’t really interested in killing me at all. I am still not prepared to let him go free, but the thought kept me pleasantly occupied for some hours. Then, I hit on the truth of it: The rascal can garner more attention and sympathy for himself and his family by staying locked up than by going out and doing something useful.
Whenever one hears the phrase America’s policies in connection with some criticism of her, or in justifying an attack on some installation or embassy, it is usually shorthand for America’s support of Israel. Israel has been facing proportionally a far greater existential threat than virtually any other nation on earth. This is because of its relative small size and its close proximity to openly hostile neighboring states. It has been likened to a canary in the coal mine, a comparison which, now more than ever, is not lost on any American administration that takes its responsibility to protect its own citizenry seriously.
It must be assumed that the leadership of any nation operating on a global platform is privy to a lot of sordid intrigue that the rest of us would find difficult to stomach. Supposing then, that credible intelligence had existed that Iraq (or Iraq in conjunction with others) was about to launch an attack on Israel. The information might even have come initially from the Mossad itself.
Any U.S. President would then be obliged to consider his options, given the treaty obligations that exist between the two nations. The first question asked would likely center on Israel’s ability to launch a successful preemptive strike. How would the Arab world react? The action would hardly be unprecedented. What happened previously? What, if anything, has changed in the meantime? What would be the effect on Israel’s peace prospects with its Palestinian neighbors? The answers are all too obvious. Worst-case scenarios would definitely play a key role, considering the systemic volatility of the region.
The next question would likely involve Israel’s ability to bounce back from an initial, possibly nuclear or biological, attack. Could any nation morally justify sitting idly by, knowing that an attack involving the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of its citizens is immanent, simply to secure an iron-clad excuse (for world consumption) to retaliate in its aftermath? What would be the effect on the world economy should Middle East oil flows be compromised in an all out conflagration?
Given many such considerations, the obvious conclusion would dictate preemptive intervention by the U.S. on Israel’s behalf.
Only there is a problem: The public may not be ready to subscribe to the spillage of American blood and treasure for the Jewish State. This debate, if initiated, might not yield expected results. The President, mindful of the risk, would then wisely decide not to expose the potentially ugly underbelly (anti-Semitism) of something that should never again be exposed by any civilized nation.
He would then attempt to defend his initiative by seeking a secondary pretext that would presumably sit better with the American people. He would note that Iraq had ignored a whole host of U.N. resolutions. In this way, he would also hope to garner broader world support. He would point to atrocities committed by the Iraqi leadership, not only against its enemies but also against its own people, just to drive the point that these were indeed bad actors. Finally, he would hearken back to a frequent mantra initiated by his popular predecessor, repeating that the Iraqi regime may already be in possession of weapons of mass destruction (which, by inference, could then potentially be used against America itself).
Committing the lives of American’s sons and daughters is never easy. The American President would have had to feel confident that the military was up to the job. He was, of course, assured that Saddam Hussein could indeed be removed without much of a fight. Once the dictator was toppled, there was no reason to believe that Iraq’s people would be anything but grateful to the Americans for having liberated them from the clutches of a brutal tyrant. In the aftermath, Iraq would be promised massive amounts of American aid to rebuild its neglected infrastructure in anticipation of private foreign investment that would launch the country into the modern age. In this way, with two presumably prosperous and well functioning democracies (Afghanistan had already been slated for similar treatment) occupying Iran’s flanks, the Iranian people would see prosperity gaining beyond its own borders and rise up against their own increasingly insular and regressive government.
In effect, the domino theory had been revived by The White House in an effort to re-configure the entire Middle East into a friendly partner. It was hoped that, with its people gainfully engaged in commerce with the West, they would lose interest in calling for Israel’s destruction. It was an ambitious plan that was thought to be in the best interests of everyone concerned – a win-win proposition - yielding handsome dividends notably also to those with little of substance to contribute beyond applause who nevertheless rely on the smooth flow of cheap oil to fuel and expand their consumer economies. The lynchpin of the operation would be the demonstration of America’s willingness to use its military might to keep all the players in line. Its ultimate success, however, would depend on all the potential beneficiaries standing united against those who would continue to agitate and disrupt any progress towards achieving peace in the region.
The warning signs, however, would come early. Even though, the majority of the American people were in support of the plan initially, the international community, with few exceptions, would balk at the prospect of military action. They were not the ones attacked on 9/11 and hence did not feel they had a dog in the fight. Furthermore, they feared that their own Islamic populations would turn against them. Additionally, some of the nations approached for support, would find themselves enmeshed in a lucrative criminal scheme (oil-for-food scandal). An invasion, resulting in regime change, would likely put an end to the gravy train and prove embarrassing to high-positioned individuals who might have gotten their hands dirty. Finally, any nation, even suspecting that the security of Israel was what was really at stake, would for this reason alone withhold its support, as anti-Semitism has once again reached a crescendo - worldwide.
How has this happened? All my life, I have been hearing the phrase, “never again” in connection with the holocaust. I thought that what had been done to the Jews during Hitler’s time had been universally condemned. Certainly, enough books have been written; enough movies made; enough museums built to chronicle the outrage. Most people nowadays just turn away, having had their fill of this never-ending litany of sorrows thrust upon them. Add to this the perception - fueled largely by the Arab world - that wherever trouble resides, Israel is never far behind.
In fact, what the planners of Operation Iraqi Freedom failed to recognize was how effective the purveyors of anti-Israeli propaganda – who immediately began to smell a rat - had been in leeching their venom into Western academe and media via an undeniably determined Islamic presence inside a whole host of presumed allies. Once again, predictably, the utter intractability of the anti-Israeli argument would strike a responsive chord with moderate elements within the bulk of these countries who would first attempt to mediate the debate, but would ultimately end up converted.
There have always been holocaust deniers, people who, for their own reasons, find it difficult to accept the scope of the carnage; but such views have, in the past, been largely dismissed and, therefore, have remained on the margins. In some countries, holocaust denial was criminalized by legal statute. Today, we find holocaust denial vigorously promoted even by elected heads of state. Ironically, we also find that large segments of the world’s Islamic population would feel no discomfort whatsoever at the prospect of some version of a holocaust repeating itself.
What is the source of such hatred for a people who have done nothing but exist, often contributing far more than their expected share to the human experience? Permit me, at this point, to recount a couple of personal, admittedly peripheral anecdotes: There are several churches in the town where I have lived in America. They all coordinate out-reach programs for the poor; they run day-care facilities; and they organize social functions for their members. During summer, when many people opt for spending time at the shore, these same churches open for Sunday worship on a rotating basis in order to guarantee a decent turnout for the pastor scheduled to conduct the service that week.
Another tradition involves inviting the members of one church to another to interact socially. Generally, the host congregation provides food for such occasions. My mother has been active in one such church for many years. She tells of being invited by the congregation of the Jewish temple for bagels and cream cheese. She has bad teeth and said she had trouble chewing the bagels (as these must have been purchased too far in advance). Still, the outing for her and the others of her circle proved congenial.
Wishing to reciprocate, her group invited the Jewish congregation to their church. They were told that this would not be possible as many in the Jewish congregation adhered to strict dietary rules and would not be able to partake of the food offered.
No problem! The Presbyterians were more than willing to go out and have the meal brought in by certified kosher caterers. The Jewish group still raised objections, claiming that any meal eaten in a place where dietary rules were previously not strictly observed would be unacceptable.
The blue-haired ladies of my mother’s circle just shook their heads. For some with German surnames old wounds were aggravated. They had hoped that time would have made them immune. All agreed that the overture was lost. Despite all best intentions, the event was not to be.
Here in India I have on occasion been denied access to certain Hindu Temples. In Kerala, for example, there is said to be a colossal golden Vishnu reclining on the serpent of eternity. There are three doors, each one, when open, reveals a different part of the deity. Once a year, all the doors are thrown open and Vishnu appears complete, in full splendor. My wife told me about having visited the temple regularly as a child while growing up in Trivandrum. I too so wanted to see it, but when we arrived there we were told that only Hindus were allowed to enter. I felt cheated. Then it was explained to me that this was a way to keep those away who would show disrespect to the Hindu religion by joking or laughing or making crude comments in the presence of powerful gods, represented by the idols. It was also an attempt to prevent vandalism. I felt the anger rising within me. “Why, I would never even think of doing anything like that,” I blurted. “But there are others who would,” I was told. “And you can guess who they are.” Now I understood why they were screening grandmothers and babies at airports.
Unlike the Hindus, the Jewish ladies had nothing to fear from the Presbyterian Lady’s Circle. They would have been shown the utmost courtesy. Their refusal to participate reciprocally in the commonly accepted social pantomime was sheer and utter bloody-mindedness.
---------------------------------------
Driving through the town of Lakewood, New Jersey, any time of day - any day of the week - one sees orthodox Jews of all shapes and sizes dressed in black suits, white shirts, and wearing funny, wide-brimmed hats, nervously dodging traffic on foot, peyots and tzitzis flying. The rest of the town’s population is mostly black. The chief-of-police maintains an uneasy truce between these two disparate groups, which are somehow destined to live side by side (as is also the case in New York’s Crown Heights section, which frequently finds itself the subject of news bulletins following some public disturbance or another). Lakewood is located along Route 9, a major truck route running north and south (commercial vehicles are prohibited on the Parkway, which runs parallel with Rt. 9). The burly truckers all giggle amongst themselves whenever they happened to be driving through the town, venturing their opinions about inbreeding and ovens.
There is a lovely lake at the south end of the town that has a boardwalk built part way around it. There, the orthodox matriarchs are seen parading their daughters in the benevolent evening light. It is quite certain that not one of their husbands ever took up a hammer or saw to contribute to the construction of this boardwalk - though they may well have given money at arm’s length, as is their tendency to maintain at a distance.
-------------------------------------------
There is always a suspicion of the bird that does not conform to the flock as in Jerzey Kosinski’s, “The Painted Bird”, a novel based on a game eastern European boys used to play between the wars. It involved capturing a bird and painting it some garish color before releasing it once again. Its mates would then find it and peck at it - preferably while still in flight (from the boys’ point of view) - until mortally wounded, it would come crashing spectacularly to the ground.
Someone once said that the world has never forgiven the Jews for introducing a judgmental God into the mix. Compounding matters is the arrogance suggested when a people refer to themselves as the chosen. A good number of Jews themselves have abandoned their faith and struck out on their own. Now no longer shackled by strict moral codes and intrusive ritual, many have succeeded in achieving success in secular arenas, as in the arts, the sciences, as well as in politics. By their considerable influence, they have been able to secure the backing of the world’s most powerful military machine in support of their (mostly) secular democratic experiment: Israel.
Those Jews most vehement in their rejection of religion – their own, as well as those of others - have managed to author and support a political system that first and foremost strikes any deity from the human heart. In their view, the Zionist state commits two sins simultaneously: first, by allowing the religious component to flourish; and, second, by insisting on legally defined borders (as opposed to their ideal of open migration). They do not support the Jewish state and are fiercely dedicated to its demise. As we have seen in the previous chapter, such sentiments remain attractive to any number of left-leaning groups who continue to plot America’s own abdication with near-fanatical zeal. We can no longer fail to suspect that, for radical left-wing atheists, Communism has become a substitute religion, embracing a comprehensive (albeit shallow) worldview complete with sins (littering), sacraments (abortion), and the obligation to proselytize. In addition, they all fervently anticipate a second coming of sorts, when all the world’s people will live under a single (red) banner. In order for this to happen, they believe, the great Satan of inequity (also known as America) must first be dethroned. It is they, who are now driving the wedge of division between us, wishing to see us buckle under the weight of our own debate as we confront a whole host of challenges at home and abroad. As pertains to radical Islam’s bid for power specifically, their intent to aid and abet this enemy has become abundantly clear. It is not that they necessarily support the terrorist’s fanatical vision. The fact that it can inflict damage on America is what remains attractive to them.
Until 1948, never having had a permanent patch of earth to develop and call their own, the Jewish people have perfected the art of cultivating the mind no matter where they might have found themselves. Harry, a high school friend of mine, a Jew, used to break out in hives every time our school issued reports. He was an ordinary kid like the rest of us. It’s just that he lived in the good part of town and had a tennis court in his yard. (The rest of us had to make do with badminton nets.) Another friend, Todd, would run into him years later by sheer coincidence at the Cairo train station of all places.
It was obvious that Harry’s parents put pressure on him to excel. This trait may well have applied to the parents of most Jewish children at that time (as it is generally acknowledged to apply to Asians today). As such, their consistently well-honed mental skills have landed them, in disproportionate numbers, in positions of leadership. Here in India, for example, Israeli firms have helped to introduce a type of farming that is possible even on semi-arid land. As a result, even the poorest of the poor here now have access to fresh fruits and vegetables year round. India has also teamed with Israel to develop desalinization projects, vitally important in this part of the globe where aquifers are being fouled at an alarming rate due to overuse. This kind of cooperation, supported by better-than-average proficiency in the academic arts by the peoples of both nations, habitually leads to progress. It is indicative of populations seeking to embrace the future with hope and optimism.
Contrast the Indian approach to what has occurred in Gaza. When the Israelis withdrew, evacuating their settlements, they also left behind fully functioning greenhouse technologies. The first thing the Palestinians did was to smash the greenhouses and bring in rockets to prolong a fight they had already won.
It is clear that those who shun compromise can only expect their enemies to do likewise. The Palestinians and their allies demand nothing less than Israel’s total and complete eradication. Israel demands to remain a viable political entity on land ceded to them legally by the United Nations. No common ground exists between these two positions. Any third party that thinks it may have a solution to this conundrum is not living in reality. On the other hand, few people have the stomach for what must eventually happen. Were this case to go before a human court (with the power to enforce its decision), one of the sides would be forced to capitulate. A Western court would likely give the nod to Israel (though this is, as of this writing, no longer certain), whereas an Arab court would reduce Israel to a barrel in which fish are shot at will. As neither decision is likely to favor consensus, the status quo will be allowed to fester until new demographic realities can dictate solutions that are beyond dispute.
A divine court would simply look at the existing balance of power and base its determination on that basis alone. Chief among its considerations would be an evaluation of the passion either side is able to generate in support of its objective. In these days of ennui-based indecision, military power alone cannot determine the outcome to any such conflict because it would have to be used unreservedly as to have any practical effect. Israel would have to go nuclear, while the Palestinians would have to scale Israel’s walls in unprecedented numbers. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have thus far shown any inclination to go all out, and use every advantage at their disposal. However, with the nuclear option gaining on the Arab side, things might soon change.
All they have essentially done thus far is talk. While Israel has announced its intentions to hold the fort by building a wall, Palestinians have held elections, the results of which underscored their own commitment to drive Israel into the sea. They have shown ample willingness to sacrifice even their children in order to achieve that goal. For a world, only concerned with oil to fuel its economies, this may be enough to gravitate towards a policy of appeasement, thus tipping the balance in favor of the side that appears most determined. We have watched a steady escalation of the tensions between these two neighbors, from the occasional Palestinian suicide bomber slipping through the border, to a daily exchange of rocket fire, to full military incursions across internationally sanctioned boundaries. At some point, mere containment of hostilities will cease to be an option. At this writing, Palestinians have already once broken through the border into Egypt. How long can their border with Israel remain secure?
The irritant in all this has always been Israel’s physical presence in the Middle East. Were Israel to disappear overnight, the region would simply revert to what it had been all along: a kettle of feuding tribes. No longer would Israel serve as a focus, uniting all of these under a single green banner. Both America and Europe, seen as being too far away as to pose a threat to Middle Eastern chaos, would recede in importance and be left to their own devices. It seems, the mere proximity of infidels is what goads Arabs into engaging their seemingly boundless capacity to hate. As it would be unwise to place one’s king into an adjacent square of an opposing queen (as in chess), it was perhaps equally unwise to establish the nation of Israel in the Middle East.
As good men struggle to find chessboard solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as well as others), even invoking the names of their chessboard gods to help them guide their decisions, only the ultimate reality of the perfectly balanced moment - that is able to calculate the precise consequence of every action, past, present and future - knows the eventual outcome to any situation. Unburdened by human prejudice and desire, it remains the final arbiter assigned to sort through the chaos of human political rivalry and betrayal.
---------------------------------------------
Still, the President would push on. He would go it alone, if he had to. His faith assured him that every human heart yearns for freedom and for the opportunity to pursue its bliss. In his mind, there was no place for dictators who run nations solely for their own amusement. Initially, things went according to plan. Hussein’s forces were defeated in record time and the people came out in droves to welcome their liberators.
What he had not counted on was that the Iraqi people would continue to be under threat from their own religion; that the mere presence of infidels (non-Muslims) in the country would act like a magnet for people from all over the region seeking only to kill and destroy in order to satisfy some religiously inspired jihad. Who might have foreseen that the Iraqis, at first well disposed towards their liberators, would themselves become targets; that brother would be made to turn against brother and all hell would break loose.
The President had also not counted on popular support eroding at home. In the past, politics had always stopped at the water’s edge. Not with this President! Democrats decided en masse to summarily bock every move he would contemplate, foreign or domestic. No alternate positions would need be advanced, as the strategy was designed solely to make the President look bad. Democrats were fully invested in America’s failure on any number of fronts, thinking that this would increase their chances in future elections. Unmindful of the precedent set, they would be proven right.
The mainstream press, desperately wanting Democrats back in power (if for no other reason than to flex its muscle in denial of declining influence), would attack him relentlessly. His considerable success with regard to the U.S. (and, hence the world’s) economy would deliberately go unreported. His efforts to reach out to Democrats, offering them a policy voice, were cast as defeats. No Democrat would be interested in working with the President. They were only here to say “no” with resounding unanimity. The press would march in lock step, giving voice to any petty crackpot capable of putting two sentences together, the first being, “Bush sucks.”
As I write this, America is preparing for mid-term elections. Conventional wisdom has the Republicans losing control of both Houses. If this were to happen, the partisanship would likely only increase. The Democrats, buoyed by their victories can be counted on to overreach. For one thing, the Democrats would want to begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush; this, simply a continuation of their already blatant campaign to criminalize policy differences. In addition, they would also attempt to bring back the fairness doctrine, which would effectively take conservative voices off the air. These all are things the American people themselves - roughly 50% of whom are conservative - will not allow to let stand.
Just how a newly configured Washington would respond to the Islamic threat is anybody’s guess. So far, no serious policy position other than cut and run in Iraq has been articulated by any Democrat of national standing. If such a policy were indeed actively pursued, it would likely unleash a civil war in that country and plunge the entire Middle East into a firestorm. It would affect America too in that the flow of oil supplies would likely be disrupted. Insofar as America has no plan B with regard to its energy needs, its economy would grind to a virtual halt. Israel would be sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. The Chinese would take Taiwan; North Korea would make its move to take the South.
I once wrote an e-mail to John Loftus, a Democrat and regular contributor to The John Batchelor Show (radio program), whose thoughtful analysis of events, particularly in the Middle East, I respected. I asked if he was not at all concerned at the prospect of John Kerry winning the election. He replied that both Bush and Kerry were aware of the facts on the ground; that both men would likely respond to events similarly. This view certainly could not be gleaned from press reports. It got me to thinking, that Loftus might be right after all; that the President of the United States (or of any country) is merely a figurehead; that any nation always does what is in its best interest regardless of who voices (or, as in Bush’s case, does not voice) the policy. If this is indeed so, then America will always be number one; Israel will remain its best ally in the Middle East; the Arabs will continue to sell oil; and the Communists will forever cement their status as also-rans, despite persistent press reports to the contrary. Now and then, perfectly decent men will be sacrificed for sport on the altar of public opinion, as has been demanded by pagan ritual since long before the thief, Barabbas, gained his freedom so that Christ could be crucified.
I lack confidence in my ability to read my tea leaves precisely. As I see it, there appear to be just three possible outcomes to our present geo-political puzzles. One, the Islamists will take over the world and force everyone to submit to shariat law. Should this happen, there would be one thousand years of peace (as the Islamists themselves predict) as no one will be permitted to oppose them. This scenario, however, is not likely to develop, as neither the Communists nor the capitalists would tolerate the religious element inherent in Islam for long. Two, the West will have buckled under the twin pressures of Islam and the effects of its own decadence, allowing the Communists to simply walk in. In this case, there too would be a thousand years of peace (or absence of conflict) as; once again, no one would be allowed to deviate from the State-proscribed program. They would be ruthless in eradicating Islam and any other religion that does not conform to their Marxist template. The thousand years of peace would be accompanied by something akin to the dark ages as no progress will be made in any field except in the construction of Gulags and re-education centers. Three, the West will prevail, but lacking the discipline to act decisively, the status quo will remain. There will be a thousand years of low-level conflicts around the world as well as intense political drama. No leader in the West or elsewhere has yet emerged to take the reigns decisively. Should something happen such as another 9/11 or worse, it is possible that the people will begin to rally around someone who shows signs of having a credible plan to actually tackle some issues. Realistically speaking, only the West has the resources to accomplish whatever it wants. What is lacking at present is conviction.
In any case, whatever happens (or does not happen) to Israel in the meantime, should give a pretty fair indication of where we are headed. Should Israel be left to the wolves, the implications for the West would be grim. It would mark the beginnings of a slide toward irrelevance. It would signal the wolf pack that America has been severely wounded; that the time is right to move in and strike the fatal blow. Should the Israeli-Palestinian issue remain unresolved, the current situation will continue (and we all know what that’s been like). Should Israel emerge a clear winner in the Middle East, the future of the U.S. as strongman will remain assured. The Chavez’s and Castro’s of the world would continue to bark and bite at the ankles, but their efforts would fall into the category of sideshow. Eventually they would lapse into irrelevance.
A lot of what happens will depend on Israel itself. Should Israel lose hope, and should America be unable to reassure her convincingly, all bets are off. Israel’s partnership with America is vital for the viability of both nations. This is why I posited my remarks at the beginning of this chapter as I did.
----------------------------------------------
There’s a man living in my house who wants to kill me. I know this because he has tried it many times before and is always openly talking about it. I’ve had to put him in a box for my own protection. I give him food and water – all the essentials; I even promised I would let him go if he abandons his quest to rob me of my life.
Now, this man is claiming that his family is starving because he can’t go out and work. I reiterate that all he would have to do is give up his lethal intentions. He refuses.
His family has now taken it upon itself to slander my name in the village. They say I am a monster for letting them starve. Self-appointed human rights groups hold rallies almost daily just outside my gate, shouting the vilest slogans. (I’ve had to move my own family into the rear quarters so they can go about their business undisturbed.) Never is my own right to live in peace considered a legitimate reason for what I’ve been forced into doing.
The man in the cage believes that because I am in the position to imprison him, I am the one who is powerful and, hence, accountable for all that happens. He sees himself as my victim. As “victim”, he boasts, he is always blameless. He also knows that those of the village will always support the underdog and view his suffering as heroic – even saintly. All my protestations to the contrary have no impact.
In a world that believes that might is right, I am beginning to doubt my own moral position in this matter. Perhaps I should free him and offer my breast to his knife. Then he would suffer first-hand the contradictions inherent in possessing power. Would his murderous mind even appreciate the lesson?
Maybe I think too much. Maybe the understanding of power is precisely that which diminishes it. Perhaps I should set him free - and then sic my dogs on him. The world will howl but, conscience or no conscience, I’d still be alive.
The other day, he let it slip that any formal agreement between him and me would mean very little in any case; as he would not feel bound by anything he might be inclined to promise me. Though, I have always suspected it, I was grateful to hear it from his lips. It opened up the possibility that he wasn’t really interested in killing me at all. I am still not prepared to let him go free, but the thought kept me pleasantly occupied for some hours. Then, I hit on the truth of it: The rascal can garner more attention and sympathy for himself and his family by staying locked up than by going out and doing something useful.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Left Hook: War
Wars are the milestones of human history. Wars mark beginnings. They also signal ends. As such, they chart our progression from one generation to the next, and so on… On our concept circle, war and peace are represented by a single point; they are two sides of the same coin. War is not the opposite of peace just as peace is not the opposite of war. Each is merely the (temporary) absence of the other. That is why war and peace can exist simultaneously – in different places; at different times; and within separate chambers of the human heart - each failing to appreciate the eternal presence of the other in what essentially amounts to a charade of willful delusion.
Some people wage war, while others wave peace signs. What protesters fail to see is that their placards proclaiming PEACE have “WAR” written on the on the backs of them. (No one alive is excused from a conflict that directly involves his/her immediate neighbors.) The difference lies in the consequences. Those fighting in the trenches are putting their lives on the line. They are the true heroes of any struggle. Those waving signs on the (America’s) home front risk nothing save being exploited by the enemy, which ultimately brands them quite rightly as traitors.
It might even be said that peace is a precondition for war; that peace itself foments the poisons that eventually force men into battle; that the lax chaos underlying outward tranquility allows for inequities to build, until these then must topple under their own weight. The laws of survival during war are far less forgiving after all.
Man is far too imperfect a being to determine his own destiny. Every human at some point succumbs to disease and dies. The cause of his death is almost always traced back to the way he has lived his life - some imbalance; some indiscretion; some repeated compulsion to top-off a perceived void - that ultimately sends him off into the next world. This is the human condition. How can any one of us - so attached to sensory comfort; so lacking in focus and self-control - be expected to chart the destinies of ourselves; our families, even; much less the destinies of corporations, nations – the world? It continues to be the duty of a higher power to unleash plagues; and, yes, wars when appropriate; to dispatch scalding siroccos across the land in order to disinfect it, make it clean once more, and give us all the opportunity for a fresh start.
And again we talk of duality. We try to ascribe bad decisions to bad results; good decisions to good results without necessarily appreciating the bias we thereby openly exhibit. We say the Buddha died from eating bad meat. It would never occur to us to say that the Buddha died of eating ‘good’ meat - or that he simply died (because his time was up). There must always be a cause. In the Buddha’s case it is said to have been meat - and now we proclaim ourselves vegetarian.
Some have sought to break the cycle of history by (the) diplomacy (of delay) or by outright appeasement. This has only lead to even greater disasters as evidenced by numerous past debacles. Success or failure in diplomacy eludes objective measurement (such as body counts) and can be manufactured to fit any template. The latest effort centers on a strategy termed 'containment'; allowing conflicts to fester in the hope that they will eventually go away. Clearly, so much discontent is currently being stoked the world over – such dearth of leadership; so many hearts aflame - it’s hard to know exactly where the firebreaks we’ve attempted to enforce will be breached first.
In human history one third is given over to war, while two thirds is given to peace (or the absence of war). War continues to be the domain of the young; the virile; the idealists. It is a tool meant to be grasped by those with the courage to pursue (or protect) a vision. Once one’s own vision has failed, the challenge is never far. One must either fight blind or yield. In the Hindu trinity, war is represented by Shiva (the destroyer) who is by far the most popular in the trinity of gods.
War is a wound that never heals. We are forever tempted to scratch it open for the fascination of watching it bleed. Even in peace, the memory of past wars continues to haunt us. Even in peace, the prospect of the next one is just over the horizon. That’s why we urge our populations to support armies that stand idle two-thirds of the time.
------------------------------------------------------
ONE: Omi (Grandmother)
Only a short bit of cobblestone is visible from the third floor window of my prison cell. The rest of the view is marred by red roofs cutting randomly across an endless proliferation of stark, gray walls with windows in which the curtains are always drawn. Above this hangs the sky, suspended as if from a noose. It has become of primary interest to some of my mates who have learned to predict the weather with astounding accuracy.
I allow myself a few moments each day to survey this scene. For me, the sky is of little interest. Even when clear, it sprawls like a corpse atop its mother, smothering her under its foul weight. From my vantage point, only my visible section of cobblestone street remains immune to the stench of this place. It is there that I watch for the changing styles of which I am no longer a part.
Today it is raining. I see a small boy with bare knees skipping across my severely restricted view of freedom. The white fabric of his uniform shirt clings to his back. A book bag is carelessly slung across his shoulder. …and then he is gone.
I check my watch. It is still too early for school. I imagine him to be going to see his grandmother. He does so (usually after school) two or three times a week even though his mother has strictly forbidden it.
He would have gone yesterday, but it had been the day of the soccer match between our town and the next one just up the river. It has always been a great rivalry. No boy would have missed it, even for a grandmother’s chocolate bribes.
Still, it had been a sacrifice for the boy, tempered in part by the fact that our town had won the match in the final moments of the game. Today he would make up for it by getting there early to see if she needed anything. It is Wednesday, market day, when farmers from the surrounding hills set up their stalls in the square. Sometimes the old woman would send him out for vegetables. The boy knows it isn’t likely today, for she had not been feeling well and would not be inclined as to spend much time in the kitchen. Still, it would ease his conscience a bit to have made the effort. He takes a certain measure of pride in being the only one in his family to show decency to one who – for no reason he can fathom – is shunned by the rest.
It wasn’t until third grade that the boy even knew of his grandmother’s existence. He had fallen ill while at school. His teacher suggested that he be brought over to his grandmother’s house while efforts were underway to contact his mother. (The old woman lived just two short blocks away from the school.)
Within an hour’s time, his mother had come storming in, wordlessly gathered his things and brought him home by hired car. She made him promise never to go there again. She gave no reason. Her manner was such as to preclude further questioning. His father only shrugged and turned away when the boy asked him about it later.
The boy had been intrigued to find that he too had a grandmother. The other kids had them – grandfathers, too – kindly old people who sometimes knew things about which parents generally had no clue. He had gone back there as soon as he was well again, ostensibly to thank her. It was the proper thing to do despite what his mother might have thought. But he was also curious.
The old woman welcomed him with open arms. She had sweets for him - and toys. Curiosity gave way to genuine affection when he found her to connect with his own thoughts and feelings as few others could. By mutual, silent consent, the problem with mother was never broached.
Today he would bound up the rain-slick steps to the door of his grandmother’s house. He would knock repeatedly but no one would answer. Finally, he would take the key from under the mat and let himself in.
He is immediately struck by how cold it is in her rooms. An unseen presence seems to be roaming the house at will, touching everything at once - dust bunnies dance on floors; curtains wave; lamp shades sway.
The boy rushes to shut the windows one by one. Then he enters her bedroom. Here too, the windows are wide open. Papers lie scattered all over the room.
After the last of the windows has been closed, the customary quiet returns. In the half light the boy sees the old woman in her bed, deeply submerged in sleep.
“Omi, wake up! It is I, Uwe. I have come,” he whispers repeatedly close to her ear, but is afraid to touch her. Finally he quits, realizing that she would never hear him again.
The boy sits down beside her on the bed and cries. He knows it was the raw night air that had killed her. It was his fault, he thinks. Had he come yesterday, she would have asked him to shut the windows. She had been sick and couldn’t get up to do it herself; …but how did the windows get opened in the first place?
Slowly, the outlines of the room come clearer to his bloodshot eyes. At his feet lies a folded scrap of notebook paper. He picks it up absentmindedly, half meaning to toss it back under the bed, when he recognizes his mother’s hand(writing). It’s a shopping list. On it he reads the ingredients it took for her to prepare last night’s meal.
The boy runs his sleeves over his face. He gets up and goes into the sitting room where his electric train is set up. He begins by taking the tracks apart. Then, he reassembles all the straight sections, adding a single curved track at one end which allows him to electrify the rest. Now, he carefully sets his engine down on the curved piece.
Manning the controls, he tests his work by slowly running his engine end to end. It takes several passes and numerous track adjustments until he is satisfied that electricity runs smoothly throughout the system. Finally, he jams his controls on full throttle, sending the little engine roaring at full speed down the straightaway. When it reaches the end, he watches as it leaves the track and crashes into the wall, splintering a section of baseboard on impact. He retrieves the engine and tries it again; but, this time, the engine no longer works.
A number of his wind-up toys also lie about in the room. It is on these that he focuses next, taking each one in turn, winding it until the spring snaps. All the while, the expression on the child’s face betrays no emotion. He persists, as if driven, in rendering useless each of the things he had once loved.
Incredibly, after all has been destroyed, he reconstructs the room exactly as it had been. Even the wind-up key is put back in its proper place. In the end, any casual observer might have concluded that nothing had been touched; only, that a section of baseboard in the sitting room had somehow become damaged.
The boy returns to his grandmother’s side. He notes that she seems to be smiling. He goes over to the black trunk beside her bed and tries the lid. It is locked. He knows that she keeps the key under her pillow. He hesitates before reaching to feel around for it. He shudders, sensing the weight of her head on his hand. He is just about to withdraw when he touches the key with the tips of his fingers. He sweeps it out, sending it flying across the room. Finding it again, he unlocks the trunk and raises the lid.
It is nearly empty. A packet of faded photographs, secured with a rubber band, lies at the bottom along with various documents, yellowed with age. There is also a shoe box containing jewelry and a man’s pocket watch. Lastly, there is a leather purse containing a thick wad of bills.
The boy takes only the money and stuffs it into the pockets of his shorts. Then, after having put everything back just as it was, he closes the lid and locks it. He studies the key in his open hand before putting it with the money he had taken.
Just then, the church bell tolls eight times. School would be starting momentarily. The boy knows he should hurry. He checks the room once more for anything he might have missed. His eyes are no longer that of a child. He notes the several sheets of lead-colored stationary lying on the floor opposite the windows. He goes to gather them up. As was the case with the grocery list earlier, he recognizes his mother’s script. Though entirely legible, it is not written in a language he knows. Nevertheless, he decides to stash these in his book bag for possible future reference. Then he heads out into the morning, making certain that the front door is locked and the key is put back under the mat.
The rain has stopped. Already the wind has dried most surfaces. Only puddles remain to tell of the deluge earlier. There are no school-age children about. The boy will be late. Ordinarily this would worry him. His is a nation where being late for anything is taken as a sign of lax moral character. Consequently, punctuality was fervently promoted on all levels. It was not uncommon for a child to be beaten for arriving late at school.
Today, understandably, there are other things on the boy’s mind.
TWO
That boy was me some thirty odd years ago. Overnight, the rules that applied to my peers no longer applied to me. For one thing, judging by any standard, I was now quite wealthy. School was no longer important as a vehicle for eventually finding a well-paying job. For another, my mother’s authority over me had suddenly lifted. Never again was she to tell me outright what to do. Though, I must admit, there were times I could have used some guidance.
She seemed to suspect something, even without my breathing a word of my own suspicions, much less confronting her with the grocery list. She seemed resigned to leave her fate – and mine – in the hands of a child.
She died ten years later of unspecified causes. Barely six months after, my father died in an automobile accident. I didn’t go to either funeral. I traveled a lot because I could afford it. In city after city, I wore out my welcome with the arrogant nature I’d adopted. My problems would generally begin with the women I met. Invariably, fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins – entire families – would come out of the woodwork to pose their threats. Somewhere I left a son. It became a source of continuing amazement to me how quickly I could turn a whole town against me.
As time went on, I found it increasingly difficult to hang on to my money. My appetites were out of control. In one last, desperate effort to turn a profit, I invested all I had left in an illegal venture that would ultimately land me here. Every day since then, I have cursed the woman who put me here – my mother. May she rot ion hell!
Final Thoughts
One thing prison lets you do is think. I must have gone over it a thousand times, and it’s every bit like death itself: the barren landscape of my past stretching endlessly before me, as in a painting. And I am unable to go back and change even a single brush stroke.
I search the canvas for my son. But this only brings me face to face with yet another in a series of disappointments, each one leading to the next and so on, up to and including the present moment.
I have come to identify a pattern in my behavior which, never questioned, remained unchallenged. And so, the result from the beginning was never really in doubt. I traced this pattern to its conception and arrive back on the day on which I found my grandmother dead. How I wish now, I would have left that old trunk alone, for it marked the beginning of my fall from grace. As I have never doubted my mother’s guilt in the affair, it became all too convenient for me to blame her for all that would follow.
The mind is an indefatigable instrument. Left to its own devices, it will continue to erode the brittle fabric of delusion until only truth remains. Though reluctantly, I have come to accept responsibility for my own actions. And with it came the realization that I didn’t hate my mother nearly as much as I hated myself.
I know now that there are no beginnings; that each thing that happens is based on what came before. It is for this reason that I should have confronted my mother long ago. But there’s comfort in half-truths and hatred protects that which is easily hurt. And now it’s too late, for with death the paint defining human relationships dries and becomes permanent.
Curiously, I may always have held the key as to the truth behind Omi’s murder. To this day I’ve kept the letter my mother had addressed to her. I found it blowing around the room on the morning I discovered the body. For some unknown reason, I just never took the trouble of showing it to somebody who could have translated it for me – until yesterday. I asked a fellow here to take a look at it. He said he’d have it ready by this morning’s exercise period. I should know within the next few hours…
Somehow, I just can’t imagine it’ll make much difference, no matter what it says. I will, however, add it as a footnote to this writing in any case.1
________________________________________________
1 Dear Mother,
Imagine me calling you “dear” – or “mother”, for that matter – even as you’ve managed to make me into the stump of a woman I am today. I’m sure that the war had a lot to do with it. We’ve all suffered. But whereas some are uplifted by their pain and others are crushed, a few are reduced to a rare distillate of evil. You, dear mother, fall into the latter unfortunate category.
The evidence stacks up overwhelmingly against you. There’s more than enough to justify an indictment of this nature. While it is true that no court would convict you, God knows of your crimes and will judge you accordingly. Must I really remind you of the facts that condemn you?
When war broke out over the continent, it took our father first. He never returned but may still be alive somewhere, especially as his name never appeared on any of the long lists of the fallen. It may just be that he saw a chance to escape your lethal schemes and took it. I wouldn’t blame him if he did.
Then there was my poor brother, L. Being an only son he was not required to enlist. Yet you insisted he do so, using his sexual preference against him to drive your point. “Prove you’re a man,” you chided, adding, “There’s opportunity in war. You owe it to yourself to go out and bring back your share.” L. went and was killed within a month.
Then, when the enemy came knocking on our gates and we were advised to clear out or face the firing squads, we overloaded the wagons and headed west. We still had a long way to go when the horses died and we were forced to abandon everything – all, except that black trunk of yours which we continued to drag over the rutted roads and across the charred fields. When we were hungry, you hiked up my skirts for the men, and sometimes we ate.
We crossed several borders, dragging that old trunk on which I was made to dance until my feet bled.
Finally, we arrived here. The local population had been decimated; and those who survived were happy to accept the influx of strangers willing and able to work. With few exceptions, nobody had much to speak of. In this, everyone was equal – and that much was good. Partnerships were forged with the goal of rebuilding a nation. Friendships were formed, based on trust. It was utopia for a time until possessions would once again begin to build barriers between us.
It should have been a good time for us as well. But we were the exception. From the moment we arrived, it was obvious to all that we had money. You flaunted it at every turn. Our home was large enough to house ten families. You hired servants who stole from you and talked behind our backs. You sent me to school in clothes that were many times better than what the others could afford. I put on weight. None of my classmates would talk to me.
Later, you’d bring around men who drove motorcars. You scolded me for being deliberately dull. Finally, you tricked me into marrying the worst of the bunch. I understand he made his fortune during the war (like you expected L. to do) digging out the gold from the teeth of the dead. He abused me repeatedly and you always took his side. I intentionally aborted two pregnancies because I feared for the future of these children. Then he abandoned me.
When I met Martin, the bottle washer, I no longer cared. Somehow he fell in love with me and proposed marriage. I never loved him; that much was true. But, for the first time in my life, another human being treated me with kindness and respect. We were married despite your objections.
After Uwe was born, something extraordinary came over me. I felt stirrings I had thought no longer possible. And even in my now diminished state, I vow to use what strength I can muster to protect him from the madness of our generation.
May the good Lord forgive me!
---------------------------------------------
As none of us is ever entirely confident of the ways in which we seek to fulfill our individual destinies, all of us must grapple with guilt. Guilt is by far the heaviest burden any man can be asked to carry. Guilt is always plentiful. It is commonly traded like currency; and, like currency, its value floats according to what the market will bear. Beyond that, guilt is largely illusory, a ruse often raised in support of political ambition. It works because things are never simply black and white; seldom does one find a signed confession at the proverbial crime scene; seldom a suicide note. Only the artist is afforded the luxury of a guiltless enclave. As he commands total control of his space – the colors on his palette; the clay in his hands; his words on paper; etc. - he remains at liberty to fill in whatever uncertainties may arise with whatever he may be moved to show - while the rest of us remain in constant need of forgiveness.
Some people wage war, while others wave peace signs. What protesters fail to see is that their placards proclaiming PEACE have “WAR” written on the on the backs of them. (No one alive is excused from a conflict that directly involves his/her immediate neighbors.) The difference lies in the consequences. Those fighting in the trenches are putting their lives on the line. They are the true heroes of any struggle. Those waving signs on the (America’s) home front risk nothing save being exploited by the enemy, which ultimately brands them quite rightly as traitors.
It might even be said that peace is a precondition for war; that peace itself foments the poisons that eventually force men into battle; that the lax chaos underlying outward tranquility allows for inequities to build, until these then must topple under their own weight. The laws of survival during war are far less forgiving after all.
Man is far too imperfect a being to determine his own destiny. Every human at some point succumbs to disease and dies. The cause of his death is almost always traced back to the way he has lived his life - some imbalance; some indiscretion; some repeated compulsion to top-off a perceived void - that ultimately sends him off into the next world. This is the human condition. How can any one of us - so attached to sensory comfort; so lacking in focus and self-control - be expected to chart the destinies of ourselves; our families, even; much less the destinies of corporations, nations – the world? It continues to be the duty of a higher power to unleash plagues; and, yes, wars when appropriate; to dispatch scalding siroccos across the land in order to disinfect it, make it clean once more, and give us all the opportunity for a fresh start.
And again we talk of duality. We try to ascribe bad decisions to bad results; good decisions to good results without necessarily appreciating the bias we thereby openly exhibit. We say the Buddha died from eating bad meat. It would never occur to us to say that the Buddha died of eating ‘good’ meat - or that he simply died (because his time was up). There must always be a cause. In the Buddha’s case it is said to have been meat - and now we proclaim ourselves vegetarian.
Some have sought to break the cycle of history by (the) diplomacy (of delay) or by outright appeasement. This has only lead to even greater disasters as evidenced by numerous past debacles. Success or failure in diplomacy eludes objective measurement (such as body counts) and can be manufactured to fit any template. The latest effort centers on a strategy termed 'containment'; allowing conflicts to fester in the hope that they will eventually go away. Clearly, so much discontent is currently being stoked the world over – such dearth of leadership; so many hearts aflame - it’s hard to know exactly where the firebreaks we’ve attempted to enforce will be breached first.
In human history one third is given over to war, while two thirds is given to peace (or the absence of war). War continues to be the domain of the young; the virile; the idealists. It is a tool meant to be grasped by those with the courage to pursue (or protect) a vision. Once one’s own vision has failed, the challenge is never far. One must either fight blind or yield. In the Hindu trinity, war is represented by Shiva (the destroyer) who is by far the most popular in the trinity of gods.
War is a wound that never heals. We are forever tempted to scratch it open for the fascination of watching it bleed. Even in peace, the memory of past wars continues to haunt us. Even in peace, the prospect of the next one is just over the horizon. That’s why we urge our populations to support armies that stand idle two-thirds of the time.
------------------------------------------------------
ONE: Omi (Grandmother)
Only a short bit of cobblestone is visible from the third floor window of my prison cell. The rest of the view is marred by red roofs cutting randomly across an endless proliferation of stark, gray walls with windows in which the curtains are always drawn. Above this hangs the sky, suspended as if from a noose. It has become of primary interest to some of my mates who have learned to predict the weather with astounding accuracy.
I allow myself a few moments each day to survey this scene. For me, the sky is of little interest. Even when clear, it sprawls like a corpse atop its mother, smothering her under its foul weight. From my vantage point, only my visible section of cobblestone street remains immune to the stench of this place. It is there that I watch for the changing styles of which I am no longer a part.
Today it is raining. I see a small boy with bare knees skipping across my severely restricted view of freedom. The white fabric of his uniform shirt clings to his back. A book bag is carelessly slung across his shoulder. …and then he is gone.
I check my watch. It is still too early for school. I imagine him to be going to see his grandmother. He does so (usually after school) two or three times a week even though his mother has strictly forbidden it.
He would have gone yesterday, but it had been the day of the soccer match between our town and the next one just up the river. It has always been a great rivalry. No boy would have missed it, even for a grandmother’s chocolate bribes.
Still, it had been a sacrifice for the boy, tempered in part by the fact that our town had won the match in the final moments of the game. Today he would make up for it by getting there early to see if she needed anything. It is Wednesday, market day, when farmers from the surrounding hills set up their stalls in the square. Sometimes the old woman would send him out for vegetables. The boy knows it isn’t likely today, for she had not been feeling well and would not be inclined as to spend much time in the kitchen. Still, it would ease his conscience a bit to have made the effort. He takes a certain measure of pride in being the only one in his family to show decency to one who – for no reason he can fathom – is shunned by the rest.
It wasn’t until third grade that the boy even knew of his grandmother’s existence. He had fallen ill while at school. His teacher suggested that he be brought over to his grandmother’s house while efforts were underway to contact his mother. (The old woman lived just two short blocks away from the school.)
Within an hour’s time, his mother had come storming in, wordlessly gathered his things and brought him home by hired car. She made him promise never to go there again. She gave no reason. Her manner was such as to preclude further questioning. His father only shrugged and turned away when the boy asked him about it later.
The boy had been intrigued to find that he too had a grandmother. The other kids had them – grandfathers, too – kindly old people who sometimes knew things about which parents generally had no clue. He had gone back there as soon as he was well again, ostensibly to thank her. It was the proper thing to do despite what his mother might have thought. But he was also curious.
The old woman welcomed him with open arms. She had sweets for him - and toys. Curiosity gave way to genuine affection when he found her to connect with his own thoughts and feelings as few others could. By mutual, silent consent, the problem with mother was never broached.
Today he would bound up the rain-slick steps to the door of his grandmother’s house. He would knock repeatedly but no one would answer. Finally, he would take the key from under the mat and let himself in.
He is immediately struck by how cold it is in her rooms. An unseen presence seems to be roaming the house at will, touching everything at once - dust bunnies dance on floors; curtains wave; lamp shades sway.
The boy rushes to shut the windows one by one. Then he enters her bedroom. Here too, the windows are wide open. Papers lie scattered all over the room.
After the last of the windows has been closed, the customary quiet returns. In the half light the boy sees the old woman in her bed, deeply submerged in sleep.
“Omi, wake up! It is I, Uwe. I have come,” he whispers repeatedly close to her ear, but is afraid to touch her. Finally he quits, realizing that she would never hear him again.
The boy sits down beside her on the bed and cries. He knows it was the raw night air that had killed her. It was his fault, he thinks. Had he come yesterday, she would have asked him to shut the windows. She had been sick and couldn’t get up to do it herself; …but how did the windows get opened in the first place?
Slowly, the outlines of the room come clearer to his bloodshot eyes. At his feet lies a folded scrap of notebook paper. He picks it up absentmindedly, half meaning to toss it back under the bed, when he recognizes his mother’s hand(writing). It’s a shopping list. On it he reads the ingredients it took for her to prepare last night’s meal.
The boy runs his sleeves over his face. He gets up and goes into the sitting room where his electric train is set up. He begins by taking the tracks apart. Then, he reassembles all the straight sections, adding a single curved track at one end which allows him to electrify the rest. Now, he carefully sets his engine down on the curved piece.
Manning the controls, he tests his work by slowly running his engine end to end. It takes several passes and numerous track adjustments until he is satisfied that electricity runs smoothly throughout the system. Finally, he jams his controls on full throttle, sending the little engine roaring at full speed down the straightaway. When it reaches the end, he watches as it leaves the track and crashes into the wall, splintering a section of baseboard on impact. He retrieves the engine and tries it again; but, this time, the engine no longer works.
A number of his wind-up toys also lie about in the room. It is on these that he focuses next, taking each one in turn, winding it until the spring snaps. All the while, the expression on the child’s face betrays no emotion. He persists, as if driven, in rendering useless each of the things he had once loved.
Incredibly, after all has been destroyed, he reconstructs the room exactly as it had been. Even the wind-up key is put back in its proper place. In the end, any casual observer might have concluded that nothing had been touched; only, that a section of baseboard in the sitting room had somehow become damaged.
The boy returns to his grandmother’s side. He notes that she seems to be smiling. He goes over to the black trunk beside her bed and tries the lid. It is locked. He knows that she keeps the key under her pillow. He hesitates before reaching to feel around for it. He shudders, sensing the weight of her head on his hand. He is just about to withdraw when he touches the key with the tips of his fingers. He sweeps it out, sending it flying across the room. Finding it again, he unlocks the trunk and raises the lid.
It is nearly empty. A packet of faded photographs, secured with a rubber band, lies at the bottom along with various documents, yellowed with age. There is also a shoe box containing jewelry and a man’s pocket watch. Lastly, there is a leather purse containing a thick wad of bills.
The boy takes only the money and stuffs it into the pockets of his shorts. Then, after having put everything back just as it was, he closes the lid and locks it. He studies the key in his open hand before putting it with the money he had taken.
Just then, the church bell tolls eight times. School would be starting momentarily. The boy knows he should hurry. He checks the room once more for anything he might have missed. His eyes are no longer that of a child. He notes the several sheets of lead-colored stationary lying on the floor opposite the windows. He goes to gather them up. As was the case with the grocery list earlier, he recognizes his mother’s script. Though entirely legible, it is not written in a language he knows. Nevertheless, he decides to stash these in his book bag for possible future reference. Then he heads out into the morning, making certain that the front door is locked and the key is put back under the mat.
The rain has stopped. Already the wind has dried most surfaces. Only puddles remain to tell of the deluge earlier. There are no school-age children about. The boy will be late. Ordinarily this would worry him. His is a nation where being late for anything is taken as a sign of lax moral character. Consequently, punctuality was fervently promoted on all levels. It was not uncommon for a child to be beaten for arriving late at school.
Today, understandably, there are other things on the boy’s mind.
TWO
That boy was me some thirty odd years ago. Overnight, the rules that applied to my peers no longer applied to me. For one thing, judging by any standard, I was now quite wealthy. School was no longer important as a vehicle for eventually finding a well-paying job. For another, my mother’s authority over me had suddenly lifted. Never again was she to tell me outright what to do. Though, I must admit, there were times I could have used some guidance.
She seemed to suspect something, even without my breathing a word of my own suspicions, much less confronting her with the grocery list. She seemed resigned to leave her fate – and mine – in the hands of a child.
She died ten years later of unspecified causes. Barely six months after, my father died in an automobile accident. I didn’t go to either funeral. I traveled a lot because I could afford it. In city after city, I wore out my welcome with the arrogant nature I’d adopted. My problems would generally begin with the women I met. Invariably, fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins – entire families – would come out of the woodwork to pose their threats. Somewhere I left a son. It became a source of continuing amazement to me how quickly I could turn a whole town against me.
As time went on, I found it increasingly difficult to hang on to my money. My appetites were out of control. In one last, desperate effort to turn a profit, I invested all I had left in an illegal venture that would ultimately land me here. Every day since then, I have cursed the woman who put me here – my mother. May she rot ion hell!
Final Thoughts
One thing prison lets you do is think. I must have gone over it a thousand times, and it’s every bit like death itself: the barren landscape of my past stretching endlessly before me, as in a painting. And I am unable to go back and change even a single brush stroke.
I search the canvas for my son. But this only brings me face to face with yet another in a series of disappointments, each one leading to the next and so on, up to and including the present moment.
I have come to identify a pattern in my behavior which, never questioned, remained unchallenged. And so, the result from the beginning was never really in doubt. I traced this pattern to its conception and arrive back on the day on which I found my grandmother dead. How I wish now, I would have left that old trunk alone, for it marked the beginning of my fall from grace. As I have never doubted my mother’s guilt in the affair, it became all too convenient for me to blame her for all that would follow.
The mind is an indefatigable instrument. Left to its own devices, it will continue to erode the brittle fabric of delusion until only truth remains. Though reluctantly, I have come to accept responsibility for my own actions. And with it came the realization that I didn’t hate my mother nearly as much as I hated myself.
I know now that there are no beginnings; that each thing that happens is based on what came before. It is for this reason that I should have confronted my mother long ago. But there’s comfort in half-truths and hatred protects that which is easily hurt. And now it’s too late, for with death the paint defining human relationships dries and becomes permanent.
Curiously, I may always have held the key as to the truth behind Omi’s murder. To this day I’ve kept the letter my mother had addressed to her. I found it blowing around the room on the morning I discovered the body. For some unknown reason, I just never took the trouble of showing it to somebody who could have translated it for me – until yesterday. I asked a fellow here to take a look at it. He said he’d have it ready by this morning’s exercise period. I should know within the next few hours…
Somehow, I just can’t imagine it’ll make much difference, no matter what it says. I will, however, add it as a footnote to this writing in any case.1
________________________________________________
1 Dear Mother,
Imagine me calling you “dear” – or “mother”, for that matter – even as you’ve managed to make me into the stump of a woman I am today. I’m sure that the war had a lot to do with it. We’ve all suffered. But whereas some are uplifted by their pain and others are crushed, a few are reduced to a rare distillate of evil. You, dear mother, fall into the latter unfortunate category.
The evidence stacks up overwhelmingly against you. There’s more than enough to justify an indictment of this nature. While it is true that no court would convict you, God knows of your crimes and will judge you accordingly. Must I really remind you of the facts that condemn you?
When war broke out over the continent, it took our father first. He never returned but may still be alive somewhere, especially as his name never appeared on any of the long lists of the fallen. It may just be that he saw a chance to escape your lethal schemes and took it. I wouldn’t blame him if he did.
Then there was my poor brother, L. Being an only son he was not required to enlist. Yet you insisted he do so, using his sexual preference against him to drive your point. “Prove you’re a man,” you chided, adding, “There’s opportunity in war. You owe it to yourself to go out and bring back your share.” L. went and was killed within a month.
Then, when the enemy came knocking on our gates and we were advised to clear out or face the firing squads, we overloaded the wagons and headed west. We still had a long way to go when the horses died and we were forced to abandon everything – all, except that black trunk of yours which we continued to drag over the rutted roads and across the charred fields. When we were hungry, you hiked up my skirts for the men, and sometimes we ate.
We crossed several borders, dragging that old trunk on which I was made to dance until my feet bled.
Finally, we arrived here. The local population had been decimated; and those who survived were happy to accept the influx of strangers willing and able to work. With few exceptions, nobody had much to speak of. In this, everyone was equal – and that much was good. Partnerships were forged with the goal of rebuilding a nation. Friendships were formed, based on trust. It was utopia for a time until possessions would once again begin to build barriers between us.
It should have been a good time for us as well. But we were the exception. From the moment we arrived, it was obvious to all that we had money. You flaunted it at every turn. Our home was large enough to house ten families. You hired servants who stole from you and talked behind our backs. You sent me to school in clothes that were many times better than what the others could afford. I put on weight. None of my classmates would talk to me.
Later, you’d bring around men who drove motorcars. You scolded me for being deliberately dull. Finally, you tricked me into marrying the worst of the bunch. I understand he made his fortune during the war (like you expected L. to do) digging out the gold from the teeth of the dead. He abused me repeatedly and you always took his side. I intentionally aborted two pregnancies because I feared for the future of these children. Then he abandoned me.
When I met Martin, the bottle washer, I no longer cared. Somehow he fell in love with me and proposed marriage. I never loved him; that much was true. But, for the first time in my life, another human being treated me with kindness and respect. We were married despite your objections.
After Uwe was born, something extraordinary came over me. I felt stirrings I had thought no longer possible. And even in my now diminished state, I vow to use what strength I can muster to protect him from the madness of our generation.
May the good Lord forgive me!
---------------------------------------------
As none of us is ever entirely confident of the ways in which we seek to fulfill our individual destinies, all of us must grapple with guilt. Guilt is by far the heaviest burden any man can be asked to carry. Guilt is always plentiful. It is commonly traded like currency; and, like currency, its value floats according to what the market will bear. Beyond that, guilt is largely illusory, a ruse often raised in support of political ambition. It works because things are never simply black and white; seldom does one find a signed confession at the proverbial crime scene; seldom a suicide note. Only the artist is afforded the luxury of a guiltless enclave. As he commands total control of his space – the colors on his palette; the clay in his hands; his words on paper; etc. - he remains at liberty to fill in whatever uncertainties may arise with whatever he may be moved to show - while the rest of us remain in constant need of forgiveness.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
VI. Left Hook: Communism
Note: I wrote the following during the Bush years. We already knew that communists were active in our government. What we didn’t know was that our next president would be one as well.
--------------------------------------
We are doing our best to export our religion to other lands. As one mall after another erupts on distant shores, some are enthralled while others accuse us of exerting undue influence and undermining tradition. We, who blithely return time and time again to tithe at the altar of Macy’s or Saks 5th Avenue (I could name others), without ever having taken the trouble to understand other cultures, are simply astounded when they then turn their guns against us.
--------------------------------------
Here in India, ordinary commerce is almost entirely need-based. People go to the shops only if they should actually need something. As such, Indian shops tend to give the appearance of being rather disorganized with stuff all over the place. More often than not, a shop will have no parking facilities; neither will there be sidewalks suitable for what we in the West would call window shopping. Merchants don’t try to entice you into buying something you may never have thought of getting by displaying it prominently or even attractively. In fact, with all space so severely limited as it is in much of Asia, the customer must generally ask for what he wants. Someone at the shop will then be sent to get it. He or she will make sure to first wipe off the dust before handing it over to the cashier for packaging.
This is, of course, quite different from the West where shopping is indulgence-based. It is common for people to view shopping as a social outing. Often, people will venture out to malls simply for something to do, having virtually no idea what, if anything, to buy. It is only after having arrived - where a variety of attractively lit stores beckon customers with seductive displays - that they will allow themselves to be tempted to spend their money.
Such desultory behavior may be regarded as the height of obscenity by some. With so many deprived and starving all around the world, they say, such frivolous self-indulgence is an insult to common decency. They may have a point. I recently heard of one of India’s super-rich buying a Rolls-Royce which he would park just across from a slum (next to which his business was located). I personally would regard this as a somewhat vulgar display of a serious psychological condition. On the other hand, I cannot in good conscience fault the people who have built their livelihood on the production of a car that is truly exquisite; one, that may even be considered as an example of high contemporary art.
-------------------------------------
Some time back, an old friend invited me to meet her in New York. She and her husband had flown in from California to attend a conference relating to his field of work. I had not seen the woman in some thirty years. In fact, the last time was during my first trip to India in 1974. We had been corresponding only sporadically by mail since then.
After some initial pleasantries in which we exchanged compliments on each other’s appearance (which held true in her case; not in mine), we struck out in order to find something to do. Barely a block away from the hotel, we chanced upon a gallery. All three of us had an interest in art (especially photography), so we decided to spring for the tickets.
Inside were large and small photo collages, strikingly presented, depicting scenes from the Leninist/Stalinist eras of the former Soviet Union. At some point, while going from frame to frame, carefully considering these now slightly yellowed images, I asked my hosts, “I wonder whether the organizers of this event envisioned it as critique or celebration?” Frankly, I was confused as to why anyone would sponsor such an exhibit in the first place. [I would have felt a similar reticence to embrace the concept had I been attending an exposition of Castro’s (happy) Cuba.] As far as I could tell, this had very little to do with art. Neither could it have been construed as an a balanced historical account in that the photos and clippings displayed here were taken solely from state controlled news organs, which tended to ignore some of the more dubious consequences of communist rule. The only other option remaining was to view this exhibit for what it clearly was: propaganda. I was wondering what my friends might be thinking about all this.
The answer came without hesitation, “Celebration, of course!”
“I wonder if they (the organizers and sponsors of the exhibition) had given any thought at all to the 20 million murdered as a consequence of the Communists capturing power and then maintaining it,” I ventured at the risk of alienating myself totally.
I received no reply. I recognized the tactic. My own view had been effectively cut down; marginalized.
After this, we went downstairs where 4’ X 6’ glossy photographs and video clips depicting military action in Iraq were on parade. These showed U.S. soldiers shooting guns while ordinary citizens cowered nearby. The point was well made: Bush is the worst President ever for having caused this horror. The balance of the equation, however, was curiously absent, leaving the entire (war) display without proper context. Perhaps, the answer to my wonderment in this regard lay upstairs where - seemingly unrelated to present nightmares - nevertheless, no deaths were alleged.
Perhaps, all things being equal, it is quite appropriate that the leader of a nation be judged by the numbers killed during his (or her) watch. Perhaps, all the peoples of the world can agree on just this much; exempting, of course, the added diversion of massaged numbers and outright lies. Reading the headlines day to day, however, does not indicate that the murder of 20 million (or any number) - resultant of ethnic cleansing, plain hatred, or just for the mere convenience of it - is still considered grounds for condemnation, much less intervention. As a substitute, we have perfected the art of applause and (the closely-related gesture of) hand-wringing.
I could tell that my host’s mindset had not changed in thirty years. Like so many of our “educated” elite, she still clung to the utopian notions of her youth. When did reading and evaluating history go out of fashion? Have there not been books written that clearly chronicle the ultimate, often spectacular failures of communism everywhere it’s been tried? Add to this the tremendous toll in lives lost that frequently accompany the much-vaunted revolutions that invariably kick it off; plus the additional cost to human dignity at the expense of repression, which is commonly required just to maintain such a faithless system. Since when did the nuance in explaining the purpose of a fence (or wall) - to keep people in, as opposed to keeping people out - become irrelevant? What has communism ever been able to offer its devotees except high-sounding prose proclaiming utopian social theory, which in real life quite possibly applies only in a very limited sense to the nuclear human family?
The poor will always find communism attractive not realizing that, if they had their wish, they would never be able to rise above what an (essentially anonymous) State prescribes for them, limiting both, freedom of expression as well as ownership of the goods they might desire, even while being abundantly endowed with of the God-given talents to realize such wants. In addition, they do not understand that under such constraints, as are entirely predictable under communist rule, the shelves are likely to be empty in any case. They will initially applaud the toppling of the high and mighty - giving way to a baser instinct - even as their own opportunity to similarly blossom is cut off at the root.
The young too, will find the opportunity to upset the applecart forever engaging. Just starting out, they have as of yet no significant stake in the future. Indeed, lacking the concept of time, they view themselves as immortal. Therefore, they see themselves as having little or nothing to lose. Perhaps there could even be a chance to pick up something for nothing in the scramble that is bound to follow any upheaval. They seldom recognize that their own impulse to steal stems from the same root that motivates the man who has painstakingly built up his (apple) business over time into an entity that now affords him a legitimate living. Quite dismissive of his sweat and tears, they take his personal effort lightly, equating it glibly with the luck of the draw. What they fail to consider is that the apple seller (short of being shot), will right his cart and continue the business as before; while the apple thief is doomed to continue stealing until someone takes the initiative to break his fingers.
(Similar thinking applies to those seeking the thrill of enlightenment by chemical means, rather than by submitting to years of study, discipline, and concentration.) Without a foundation in ethics, the young are unable to discern the difference between the right way of doing things and the wrong way, seeing only the immediate gratification which, taken by itself, tends to be rather insignificant in comparison to the path (to reach anywhere) which commonly amounts to 99% of any worthwhile effort.
But, what is in it for the rich? It is not the young or the poor, who run the communist propaganda mills, worldwide. It is not the young or poor, who demonize capitalism in our classrooms. It is not the young or the poor, who badmouth our government’s best efforts at every turn from the safety of their Hollywood mansions - or, worse yet, from the dance halls on foreign shores – all, for the sake of cheap applause. It is not the young or the poor who deride elected officials at every opportunity from opposition platforms and on TV talk shows. It is not the young and the poor who proclaim their solidarity with America’s self-proclaimed enemies. It is not the young or the poor who consistently lobby for tax increases while their own fortunes are locked away offshore or in tax-exempt foundations.
Even as salaries remain commensurate with what an individual can be expected to contribute to the bottom line, there comes a point at which money becomes meaningless to the wealthy. Often, commendably, guilt creeps in as the perceived suffering of the less talented takes its toll on the enjoyment of one’s money. At the same time, the arrogance of elitism is also likely to take hold. This is by no means a proper response to guilt; it is not even consistent with the tenets of compassion. It is merely a diversionary tactic designed to massage one’s ego even further. Elitism stems from the notion that any one individual, by virtue of his (self-proclaimed) superior intellect, can dictate what others should or should not do. It culminates in hundreds of crusades for ever-increasing regulations involving everything from cell phones, to tobacco, to guns.
One of the most intrusive tools ever devised to compel a citizenry to tow the line is taxation. Ostensibly, to raise money for public projects, it almost always ends up bleeding over into social engineering. This particular area of governance has become a virtual Disneyland for elitists of all stripes. Forget about streamlining the tax code, which at last count was at least a zillion pages long. Politicians will never consent to giving up the masturbatory thrill of engaging these levers of illusion, thereby continuing to draw division where none exists. Dismissed is the notion of the general populace as a vital, intelligent organism, perfectly capable of managing its own affairs in full accord with intrinsic economic and social laws, forever driving ahead and ultimately raising all boats.
A frequent complaint about capitalism by the Left is that, by its inherent competitive nature, it creates both winners and losers. The fact that, under capitalism, even losers are never denied the opportunity to raise themselves up by their bootstraps is conveniently overlooked. The bibliography section at the local library contains hundreds of examples of losers who have gone on to become winners. The tactic works, however, in that it manages to recruit thousands who find a home in victimhood. These are people who, crippled by their rage or crushed by disappointment, are either unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to improve their lot. They find it infinitely more convenient to rail against straw dogs from the comfort of utter anonymity. Normally ignored, even shunned for exhibiting chronic ill humor, they nevertheless are courted at measured intervals because they too have a vote which they are presumed to exercise.
Most successful societies have always been ones that make room for both, winners as well as losers. The winners are always prepared to think outside the box. They envision the things that will eventually become useful to all. When flat screen TV’s first came to the stores, they cost $10,000 a pop. It was a product produced solely for the rich. The rich bought it and the prices came down. (Had nobody been able to afford it initially, the whole idea would have been still-born.) Prices continued to come down as more and more people are came aboard. Homebuilders are thinking ahead, now designing many new houses with indentations in living room walls for the express purpose of creating a specific space for the installation of home theater systems.
This story repeats itself again and again with each new invention or gadget that enters the market. Take cell phones, for example. At first, these too cost more than what most of us could readily afford. Now, nearly everybody uses them. Sometimes I think I’m the only hold-out left. Just the other day I saw a common laborer, dressed in nothing more than a loincloth, talking on his cell phone while walking barefoot on his way to work. With everything we use to make our lives more productive or enjoyable, it took the rich to prime the pump initially. These are the very same people who, the Left now insists, must either be shot or taxed to death.
Elitism always runs contrary to faith. Market forces, though marginally predictable, are largely beyond the control of any one individual or ideology. The credit for any good that may come of a healthy economy must rightly go to all those participating in it. Politicians tend to shun the idea of having no effective role to play in something so vital - apart from a willingness to leave it alone.
The most effective lure of communism, however, is that it does away with God which is mistakenly believed to free man from his conscience. The more fervently sinners proclaim their sin as acceptable - even sacred - the greater is the discord that builds both internally and externally. The chasms thus created are epic – a politician’s dream!
Religion is the single most formidable roadblock to the spread of communism worldwide. People, happily confident in their spiritual core, are not so easily swayed by empty rhetoric. They recognize the greater hand behind appearances and tend not to look to other men to solve their own problems. As such, they are apt to behave in accordance to the strictures set forth by their faith. These generally claim a moral basis that goes well beyond two-dimensional judicial fiat in that they, in addition to prosecuting actual offences, also give due weight to (right) intent(ion), in the Buddhist sense.
One of the very first acts any communist government executes is to ban religion. It has been demonstrated that once a people’s spiritual moorings have eroded, they are more easily manipulated. A worldwide communist resurgence has been underway for some time now. With the fall of the Soviet Union, communism did not go away. Its followers simply regrouped and went about organizing their movement from within the institutions that have traditionally defined Western democratic values. As such, they have succeeded in recruiting the intellectual class to attack the religious at every turn, accusing them of extremism, intolerance, and outright stupidity. Men and women of faith are routinely ridiculed in the press as well as in the arts. A crucifix immersed in urine, once prominently displayed at a major New York museum, has become the symbol for the drive to strip religion of its gravitas. It is now no longer fashionable to believe in God; the sacred and the profane have been deliberately fused into one amalgam that can be regarded as neither profane nor sacred. In a competitive world, where the edge is sometimes difficult to pin down, it is often easiest to gloss over one’s own deficiencies by identifying oneself with the labels that define the Zeitgeist.
Today, the only religion that is immune from criticism is Islam. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all. Therefore, one never hears Western intellectuals uttering a single harsh word even against Islam’s worst excesses. And God help those who do!
For those desperate enough to cast off the chains of conscience, communism claims to provide the solution: Do away with religion, and you will be able to continue living the immoral lifestyle that has become a painful habit to so many. There is no need to be reborn, no cause to worry about punishment in the afterlife. God is dead; you can relax. There is no one here to judge you. In return, of course, you must give up your soul. It is a small price to pay (nothing at all, really) for cradle-to-grave healthcare; incessant propaganda (excuse me, what I meant to say was “entertainment”); guaranteed employment during your productive years (only, we decide where you work); guaranteed housing (only, we decide where you will live), etc. We will even provide you with uniforms once you have rendered yourself worthy by ratting out enough of your friends. We will, of course, make sure that nobody has any more (or less) than you do. We will all be equal, so that nobody will have anything to bitch about.
Assuming that anyone would be so gullible as to actually welcome such governance, he would soon find that, although the church has been bombed and the priest shot, his conscience has still not been quieted. A sin is still a sin, and all the sedatives in the world can do nothing to change that. He will soon enough begin to feel duped, much like the suicide bomber who fully expected the favors of seventy-two virgins after blowing himself to smithereens in some pizza parlor in downtown Jerusalem.
I now live in a place (Tamil Nadu, India) that boasts of being one of the oldest continuous cultures in existence. I have seen its dances, its temples; I have heard its music. To my comparatively uninitiated eyes and ears, it all looks and sounds so benignly chaotic. Only, it’s not! In dance, every flutter of the eyelids signifies something, to say nothing of the hands and feet; every shade of color used to paint the icons that grace the (temple) gopuram has meaning; in song, every note is carefully choreographed to cleave to a precise protocol that has existed for centuries.
This leads me to conclude that nothing is random, though we often would prefer to think otherwise. Every religion has its protocol. Communism, for those who believe in it, is nothing less than a religion. Its protocol is well developed. The fervor with which it is promoted rivals Islam’s. It behooves every American to recognize the protocol of communism; to understand what is happening and why. The trashing of (other) religion(s), for example, is essential to the protocol of communism; as is the trashing of the traditional family; as is the idea of income redistribution through taxation; as is the casual dismissal of law and borders; as is the trivializing of education, particularly as relates to the study of history. I could go on, but the intent of this writing is not curatorial. Others have done so far more effectively without having felt compelled to take a stand.
First, a people must decide what kind of world they want their children to inherit. If they happen to be advocates for change, they have to be prepared to fight, realizing that there are many more who are perfectly content with the status quo. Those, who believe in upholding their traditions, too have to become engaged, knowing there are those who would want them crushed. Once a decision has been taken, one must commit oneself. No movement, even one that seeks to preserve what presently exists, has room for armchair cynics.
I realize that my views here run contrary to those commonly held within the halls of modern academia where logic - for some time now - has been stood on its head in an effort to support the insupportable. Were I asked to speak on just about any campus in America today, any number of rabble would immediately mobilize to disrupt my presentation. The nation’s centers of higher learning no longer tolerate divergent views. They have become insular and, in many ways, out of touch with the general public, which is admittedly divided on issues but still quite capable of conducting a reasonable debate.
When I attended college in the early 70’s, my school and most others like it prided itself in its effort to impart the discipline of critical thinking. “Consider everything” ran the mantra, “and then draw your own conclusion.” Today, everything academic is spoon-fed with a hard left slant. Even scientific research is has been politically poisoned. Global warming, for example, is routinely used to bash the U.S., accusing it of being the primary cause of imminent world-wide ecological collapse. The thrust of this attack is two-fold: First, to turn public opinion against government policies designed to protect the country’s economic base; and, second, to exact reparations on behalf of nations deemed victims of such policies. It is always an effective propaganda tool to broadcast the anguished faces of flood or draught survivors and then claim that your neighbor’s SUV has caused this and every other horror.
Contrary (scientific) views on global warming, specifically as relates to the nature of its cause, never see the light of day as such research never receives funding or media attention. How many are aware, for instance, that the ice caps on Mars are melting (as well)? (See National Geographic News: “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human Cause for Warming, Scientist Says”, by Kate Ravilious, February, 28th 2007) (The) last I heard, America has not yet been there to sell even a single automobile. Would this not indicate that something far greater than mankind’s mere exhalations is in play here? Perhaps, as Habibullo Abdussamantov - head of Space Research at St. Petersburg Pulkova Astronomical Observatory - suggests, it’s all simply a matter of the sun getting hotter!
Logic be damned! Balance? Reason? Who needs it? It is precisely because of such blatant disregard of politically incorrect fact in our schools that many of our children are no longer motivated to invest in America by making the effort to learn the three R’s; much less, study the sciences, history and civic responsibility. Indeed, many urban schools no longer offer such disciplines. If kids come away with anything at all after graduation, it is likely to be with the moronic conviction that their country sucks because it single-mindedly sets out to destroy the planet with its wars and toxic emissions. In addition, they are likely to believe that their duly elected leader is a crook for stealing the election from another, simply for the opportunity to attack a peaceful nation for dark and sinister motives involving either oil or Israel or both. 9/11/02, on which date almost three thousand Americans were murdered in cold blood, is never discussed or shown on TV (except in the context of the President himself having had a hand in it), lest it arouse suspicions of America’s legitimate obligation to defend herself.
Leftists love controversies. Most are fabricated out of whole cloth: feigned outrage over innocuous comments; unsubstantiated leaks; forged documents; etc. They effectively use the useful idiots in the press to stoke the fires of every arson attack (often attributable to their own) that serves to weaken trust in American institutions. Good economic news during Republican administrations is never reported without caveat. Seven unruly recruits putting women’s panties on imprisoned terrorists’ heads occupy the headlines for months. Incidents, involving the beheading of American soldiers on video tape and later found lying disemboweled in some Baghdad gutter, receive barely a mention. A (former) left-leaning President, having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, gets a pass while those questioning his character are tagged with the p(olitically) c(orrect) sin of intolerance.
By this kind of coverage, the Left hopes to destroy the nation’s will to survive and collapse in on itself. Not a day goes by without some politician seeking favorable press coverage by vocally lobbying for America’s defeat in its war on terror. At the same time, not a word of published criticism is ever directed at America’s enemies for fear of offending like-minded allies. The stoning of women, for example, is perfectly alright with the feminists, all of whom hate Bush (or any man). And PETA, with well-established leftist credentials, doesn’t raise an eyebrow, even when confronted with the Muslim practice of cutting off an animal’s leg for food and then keeping it alive so that the rest of its meat will be kept fresh for subsequent meals.
Coming from another planet and consulting the newspapers for clues as to what goes on here, one is sure to get the impression that America is indeed the center of all that is hateful; that all the other nations exhibit nothing short of harmonious perfection, and that everyone would live happily ever after if only America would just go away.
The end game is to turn public opinion against an America that many see as having become too successful. It is an attempt to plant the seeds of doubt in the electorate, so that they might be coerced into changing direction. In the rest of the world, this has already happened. I talk to my father (who has settled in Brazil) several times a year. His anti-Americanism is always just barely contained and bordering on the pathological. On the other hand, I constantly meet Brazilians who have emigrated to the U.S., hoping to escape the political and social chaos there, where armored cars are now required to ferry one’s kids to and from school. In my father’s eyes, the reasons for Brazil’s shortcomings can always be traced back to America’s doorstep.
In India, the welcome I experienced here 30 years ago is no longer quite as enthusiastic. This is no big mystery. Several mornings a week, I too read Paul Krugman’s New York Times column in The Hindu, our local paper. Unlike in America, where the majority of people have very little interest in news, every political development at home and abroad is closely watched. Indian’s think that President Bush is either dumb or evil. America’s own news outlets trumpet both positions daily. We literally export our own bad press. (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quotes Noam Chomsky from the floor of the United Nations, for God’s sake!) Indians (as well as Brazilians) do not have access to conservative commentaries as Americans do on their radio dials. I recently spoke to a senior news assessor for Reuters here in India. He is a thoughtful, gentle man in his seventies with several lifetimes of experience under his belt. He was unaware of something that every American news junky knows: (that) The New York Times slants left.
At this moment, America finds herself engaged on two separate fronts. One is the much-maligned war on terror. Precisely because the country has been unprepared to conduct a campaign of this type, it has taken it a long time to own up to the threat. 9/11 forced America’s hand. It served to provoke 60% of Americans into supporting some sort of response. Even so, the tools at America’s disposal have shown themselves to be woefully inadequate to the task. Geared to fighting conventionally backed armies, U.S. forces are finding themselves at loggerheads when pitted against determined ideologies that know no borders.
If asked, Americans would agree overwhelmingly that they would not wish to face the option of either, submitting to shariah law or die. Yet, roughly, a vocal quarter of our population sees the Islamic threat also as an opportunity to advance their own lifestyle agendas. As such, they are quite willing to gamble away their nation’s advantage on the global stage in a dangerous, time-sensitive farce.
This brings us to the second front, where the left wing has made its home. It consists of a broad variety of single-issue groups who have banded together, united only by their hatred of America as it is presently configured. The most prominent (largely anonymous) presence among these are the communists. Lacking overt support in a country where the poorest of the poor tend to be overweight, they have had to form alliances with people they would ordinarily despise. Among these are blacks, gays, what is left of the women’s lib crowd, environmentalists, one-world advocates, and anyone else who might be dissatisfied in some way and can get ten people and a fax machine together under one roof. Marching in lock-step, they have effectively taken over the weaker of the two political parties to drive agendas that are aimed at disfiguring the nation. Now even within the normally dynamic chambers of Washington governance, America finds herself hopelessly divided, allowing a whole host of desperately pressing issues to fester and become cancerous. Everything from foreign policy to healthcare, to immigration (among many other concerns) is currently spiraling out of control with no one prepared to take the reigns. This may be indicative of the failure of the executive branch to articulate a clear and compelling vision, as some analysts suggest. Others see it more accurately, perhaps, attributing the current legislative gridlock to a President who has been under siege from his first day in office by an opposition party that has never acknowledged his legitimacy and, as such, refuses compromise on any issue for the sole purpose of denying him a legacy. It is the same tactic used by separatists and insurgents the world over who seek to win wars of attrition by keeping their targets destabilized. They are likely at some point to gain the sympathetic nod of so-called moderates who wish to appear heroic without risk or sacrifice. After it has become abundantly clear that compromise is never a viable option, a significant number of these (moderate) appeasers can be counted on to switch sides and betray their own cause. This is the chink, once it has been pried from the levy, that will open the floodgates, yielding ever greater concessions (including legitimacy) to the undeserving, certainly enough to continue the revolt (until, as has happened recently in Nepal, where the Maoists are now in a position to demand the crown).
As much as the ultimate outcome of the war on terror is critical to America’s future, so too is her ability to recognize the communist threat from within. Both are ideologically driven, and require an effective response. Guns and bombs no longer work. Insofar as we give lip service to the need for changing the hearts and minds of our enemies, we are on the verge of admitting failure in this objective as well. Even as our intellectual class tie themselves into knots, attempting to tutor the world in our failings, the lesson appears to be lost on the millions who continue to stream across our borders in record numbers.
It is the rouge element among us that must be exposed; their agendas revealed. This is never easy, as transparency is not a prominent feature of communist protocol. At the same time, we must protect our liberties at all cost. These are, and will continue to be, the source of our strength. Given the assaults we are facing on every front, freedom of speech will increasingly come under pressure. As we have seen, already the Left is loath to entertain conservative views on college campuses and in its outlets in the media. Make no mistake, this is sign of weakness. We, as Americans, cannot stoop to preventing an ideological opponant from getting his message out. Neither can we dispense with proper elections. What we can do is confidently counter any false or weak argument with the truth as we live it. The truth, so the saying goes, always wins out in the end. As such, truth equates with power. Some may feign power by deception. They can never succeed, for even the weakest among us who accept their weakness without equivocation are bound to win any legitimate struggle when pitted against another who is rift with delusion. Therefore, it is up to those running for office to be extremely articulate in pitching their case. Conservatives will no doubt find the job more daunting, given the media bias against them.
2008 will feature the next major election in America. To date, countless millions have been spent by the candidates (mostly on cosmetics), already guaranteeing a severely skewed result. Already a theme has been selected. “Change” appears to have become the battle cry to accompany the political pageantry. “Change to what?” continues to echo in my own mind and in the minds of anyone whose capacity to penetrate issues may be only marginally greater than the thickness of an oil slick on water. What change is it that the people would find so attractive? Is it a change from the policies that have assured our prosperity; our position of influence in world affairs? Has our loathing of success become so deep that we are now willing to risk emulating failure (just for something different)? Are we prepared to dispense with our faith in markets in favor of (cigar) smoke-filled backroom solutions crafted by greedy, self-centered politicians who distort the Constitution to conform to their elitist designs? Have we forgotten our history lessons?
Countries like, Cuba, Russia, China and (recently) Venezuela (now closely aligned with Mugabe’s Zimbabwe) are routinely given favorable coverage in our press. Isn’t it strange that none of those advocating in favor of such places on our air and in our newspaper columns have any intentions of packing up and going to live there? – but I digress.
The results of the 2008 election will give us a clearer picture of America’s current disposition toward itself and toward the world at large. It will likely show a greater willingness to appease the Left. It is doubtful that the voters themselves will see it that way. Most are simply intrigued by the prospect of seeing a woman or a black man at the helm (something that has never happened before but has suddenly become a distinct possibility). It is this season’s Democrat male candidate’s (dare I say it) entirely cosmetic skin tone that has intrigued most of the world’s people of color who for some unexplained reason place a high premium on the lighter shades to the exclusion of any other consideration including proven ability or ideology. On the other side, few will realize that Bush is no longer in the running and automatically cast their vote against anyone with the letter “R” next to his or her name (in brackets).
The notion of one world, hobbled and sullied by mankind, remains. Beginning in the ‘60’s, militant movements, ostensibly formed for the purpose of protecting the earth, gained traction and support within significant political quarters. It is no accident that there has been no oil exploration since in America. Neither have enough power-generating facilities been built - not to mention oil refineries - even as we are rapidly approaching the limits of the energy the country can provide for continued economic expansion. With regard to oil, we already are heavily dependent on nations some of whom have chosen to exploit our dependence to influence foreign policy decisions that often run contrary to our own self-interests.
At the same time, reams of propaganda were routinely distributed to our schools showing pristine acreage side-by-side with less-than-flattering photographs of man-built structures, all designed to elicit responses of panic and shame among those in their impressionable years who, with the same stroke, are prevented from appreciating the miracle of their heated homes in winter and a/c in summer. Neither are the benefits of economic development explained as it relates to a population’s general well-being.
Still, today, Americans are constantly besieged by the notion that they are complicit in the largest, most successful economy in the world - not within the context of worthy achievement, but - as representative of the twin evils of unchecked greed and gluttonous appetites. This strategy has been roundly effective in that if one were to conduct a survey in most American classrooms today, one would find that 100% of the students believe in Al Gore’s 'global warming' theory and that it is almost entirely America’s fault. 50% of those, even while believing, simply don’t care. 50% of those who do care would never consider traveling overseas because they are ashamed of being American. A significant percentage of those no longer salute the American flag in school and at sporting events. A somewhat lesser number, perhaps, could feel entirely comfortable wearing obscene or anti-American t-shirts in public. A handful would not be averse to joining forces with al-Qaeda in its on-going struggle against the West. Thankfully, only a few would actually consider bringing guns to school with the intent of blowing their classmates and teachers away. Such is the state of the American public and private education today. It gets even worse when we come to realize that the country’s future hinges on those who simply couldn’t care less.
All of us have faithfully followed the progression of ever increasing violence in our schools. After each horrific incident, a call for the greater restrictions on legally obtained firearms is raised. This is a standard, though misguided, response by knee-jerk anti-gun activists who continue to ignore the fact that such behavior is consistently underwritten by school curricula as well as by mass media ideologues who would like nothing better than to see America crushed and the red flag raised over the White House. While we wallow in guilt of our own success, the rest of the world is already chomping at the bit to relieve us of our prosperity by any number of UN-inspired schemes, unbowed by any possible consequences to polar ice caps. Even this base, but entirely human, impulse is viewed by those of the most radical persuasion through the twisted lens in which America appears as deranged arsonist wantonly igniting the fires of capitalism around the world.
Existing under our myopic condition of profound innocence, we keep harboring the illusion that all the world’s people are exactly like us: reasonably well informed and free to take decisions. As we find ourselves habitually bored to tears with our neat suburban homes and cardboard cut-out families - believing that nothing can fundamentally shake us free from our loveless obligations; that public policy reversals are eternally possible even if we do happen to slip up in the voting booth - we tend to discount the sacrifice of the heroes who in good conscience have made it all possible for us. We have become so impatient for a cause that would test our limits, even to the point of tacitly embracing the causes of our enemies. In a similar vein, we never think of the citizens of failed nations - encumbered with less effective heroes (perhaps) - who are fated to suffer decades of dictatorial oppression on one hand or utter chaos on the other, except (of course) within the context of a legitimate choice they are presumed to have made. We never think of our own laws and taxes which, once passed by our legislators, are almost never officially repealed, even decades after the need for them has passed, thus illustrating the undying monster of anything officially put to paper. We think of ourselves as being eternally exempt from brutal and corrupt governance by the sheer force of our unspoken will. As such, we tend to see suicide bombings abroad, the stoning of women, beheadings, genital mutilations, gulags and the like as quaint, idiosyncratic cultural expressions (similar to the French custom of men having mistresses and Germans eating Bratwurst and drinking beer) to be read about in obscure volumes in the warm comfort of wood-paneled rooms.
Some time ago, I was watching a television program based on the book, THE POWER OF MYTHS by Joseph Campbell. In it the puberty rites of some far-flung island tribe was shown in graphic detail. It seems they pick the prettiest girl and the handsomest of the boys in their midst and compel them to make love inside a structure specially built for the occasion. At some point, others pull out the supports and the roof, laden with stones, collapses, crushing the couple inside while the entire village looks on. It was presented without comment. “It is not one world,” Paul Harvey continues to say
Who are we to judge, anyway? Our media tells us every day that we too have blood on our hands (starting with the Indians). Our every exhaled breath is said to pollute the atmosphere, threatening the existence of everything that requires air to sustain itself. We are urged to forgo having children (to reduce our personal carbon footprint) as a trade-off to taking yearly Caribbean vacations. Driving our cars to the supermarket or to work is said to endanger polar bears and people living in low-lying island nations. Our factories and power plants are said to cause draughts in Africa and killer rains in Sumatra. Our policy to protect Israeli Jews from genocide risks countless generations’ blind hatred towards us, resulting in endless terrorist threats at home and abroad. Why bother to protect ourselves? Do we, as self-proclaimed blight on humanity, even deserve a place at the table? (Make no mistake, the condemnation of ourselves originates from within our own borders, from where it is then taken and enthusiastically echoed abroad.)
Those comfortably ensconced in their ivory towers calmly expound, “Let them launch rockets; crash planes; let them snipe at our heels. Let them draw blood. What is three thousand “Hitlers” killed at the World Trade Center when put up against so many millions from around the globe who are storming our gates to demand their just revenge? They are, after all, the innocent victims of our own racism, exploitation and oppression.” In a godless world we can only bow and scrape and hand out Clintonesque pardons for crimes (of “mismanagement” never) committed by those who may well be incapable of committing crimes simply by virtue of their (victim) status. “By our own definition, only the powerful can be guilty. It’s our clever way of removing the words ‘enemy’ and ‘evil’ from the lexicon and adding the concept of ‘surrender’ to our options.”
And the students, showing that they had understood the lesson, shout in unison, “Let someone else be powerful so we can be at ease and fade into the background (surely, while reading Margaret Meade without daring to comment) as the sweat of our fathers is fussed over and divided (like Jesus’ robe) to be doled out to the poor who will now presumably be happy”.
It’s come to be engraved in the spirit of our age that the time is ripe for America to disappear. The world can no longer afford to co-habit with a country that by its mere presence exposes corrupt governance for the spectacular failure it all too often exhibits. Equality is the buzzword for a trend that is sweeping the land masses. What the intellectual elite underwriting this view are failing to consider is that there are two kinds of equality: Equality in results and equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, these cannot exist simultaneously. Understandably, the media, dealing largely in appearances, considers only the former when constructing its template. Sumptuously laden buffet tables are shown on a split-screen along with a hungry child, implying that something of what’s on the table should be given to the child. If it were in fact that simple, why didn’t the camera man do it? He was there!
Equality of opportunity is a far more difficult concept in that it involves a leap of faith. It takes faith to believe that a people, secure and left to their own devices, will figure out a way to prosper; that freedom (not equality) is the operative word that applies to any society that has been deemed successful by modern standards.
Academia, too, finds itself imprisoned by the limits of empiricism, i.e., that which can be counted or weighed. Together both (the media and academia) are attempting to force the imposition of two-dimensional solutions to multi-faceted situations that, if implemented, are doomed to fail dramatically (assuming that in the aftermath a distinction between success and failure can even be drawn). Picture the world as a broader version of Zimbabwe or the Palestinian Territories where the inmates have effectively taken over the asylum; where the freedom to inflict horror now reigns supreme; where all that counts is that the white oppressors have been kicked out - along with the Jews, of course. It is they, after all, who have had the audacity to introduce the world to a God who is capable of drawing the distinction between spiritual and secular matters, each with a separate set of parameters by which to gauge one’s fall from grace. Getting rid of them also gets rid of Him, and now we are free to do what we want (as long, of course, as He remembers to keep the lights on).
Change, we are told, will make the world a better place; a virtual utopia, in fact. Everyone will be equal (except some will be more equal than others). Those capable of orchestrating the most audacious atrocities will claim the throne, reducing the rest of us to rubberstamp party dunces, eternally living in fear of being found out to be human after all. Goodbye to progress, welcome in empty shelves; goodbye to competition, welcome in mediocrity; goodbye to free passage, welcome in checkpoints; goodbye to the arts and sciences, welcome in propaganda; good-bye to free expression, welcome in gulags. Welcome to the degradation of the human spirit off which communism feeds.
--------------------------------------
We are doing our best to export our religion to other lands. As one mall after another erupts on distant shores, some are enthralled while others accuse us of exerting undue influence and undermining tradition. We, who blithely return time and time again to tithe at the altar of Macy’s or Saks 5th Avenue (I could name others), without ever having taken the trouble to understand other cultures, are simply astounded when they then turn their guns against us.
--------------------------------------
Here in India, ordinary commerce is almost entirely need-based. People go to the shops only if they should actually need something. As such, Indian shops tend to give the appearance of being rather disorganized with stuff all over the place. More often than not, a shop will have no parking facilities; neither will there be sidewalks suitable for what we in the West would call window shopping. Merchants don’t try to entice you into buying something you may never have thought of getting by displaying it prominently or even attractively. In fact, with all space so severely limited as it is in much of Asia, the customer must generally ask for what he wants. Someone at the shop will then be sent to get it. He or she will make sure to first wipe off the dust before handing it over to the cashier for packaging.
This is, of course, quite different from the West where shopping is indulgence-based. It is common for people to view shopping as a social outing. Often, people will venture out to malls simply for something to do, having virtually no idea what, if anything, to buy. It is only after having arrived - where a variety of attractively lit stores beckon customers with seductive displays - that they will allow themselves to be tempted to spend their money.
Such desultory behavior may be regarded as the height of obscenity by some. With so many deprived and starving all around the world, they say, such frivolous self-indulgence is an insult to common decency. They may have a point. I recently heard of one of India’s super-rich buying a Rolls-Royce which he would park just across from a slum (next to which his business was located). I personally would regard this as a somewhat vulgar display of a serious psychological condition. On the other hand, I cannot in good conscience fault the people who have built their livelihood on the production of a car that is truly exquisite; one, that may even be considered as an example of high contemporary art.
-------------------------------------
Some time back, an old friend invited me to meet her in New York. She and her husband had flown in from California to attend a conference relating to his field of work. I had not seen the woman in some thirty years. In fact, the last time was during my first trip to India in 1974. We had been corresponding only sporadically by mail since then.
After some initial pleasantries in which we exchanged compliments on each other’s appearance (which held true in her case; not in mine), we struck out in order to find something to do. Barely a block away from the hotel, we chanced upon a gallery. All three of us had an interest in art (especially photography), so we decided to spring for the tickets.
Inside were large and small photo collages, strikingly presented, depicting scenes from the Leninist/Stalinist eras of the former Soviet Union. At some point, while going from frame to frame, carefully considering these now slightly yellowed images, I asked my hosts, “I wonder whether the organizers of this event envisioned it as critique or celebration?” Frankly, I was confused as to why anyone would sponsor such an exhibit in the first place. [I would have felt a similar reticence to embrace the concept had I been attending an exposition of Castro’s (happy) Cuba.] As far as I could tell, this had very little to do with art. Neither could it have been construed as an a balanced historical account in that the photos and clippings displayed here were taken solely from state controlled news organs, which tended to ignore some of the more dubious consequences of communist rule. The only other option remaining was to view this exhibit for what it clearly was: propaganda. I was wondering what my friends might be thinking about all this.
The answer came without hesitation, “Celebration, of course!”
“I wonder if they (the organizers and sponsors of the exhibition) had given any thought at all to the 20 million murdered as a consequence of the Communists capturing power and then maintaining it,” I ventured at the risk of alienating myself totally.
I received no reply. I recognized the tactic. My own view had been effectively cut down; marginalized.
After this, we went downstairs where 4’ X 6’ glossy photographs and video clips depicting military action in Iraq were on parade. These showed U.S. soldiers shooting guns while ordinary citizens cowered nearby. The point was well made: Bush is the worst President ever for having caused this horror. The balance of the equation, however, was curiously absent, leaving the entire (war) display without proper context. Perhaps, the answer to my wonderment in this regard lay upstairs where - seemingly unrelated to present nightmares - nevertheless, no deaths were alleged.
Perhaps, all things being equal, it is quite appropriate that the leader of a nation be judged by the numbers killed during his (or her) watch. Perhaps, all the peoples of the world can agree on just this much; exempting, of course, the added diversion of massaged numbers and outright lies. Reading the headlines day to day, however, does not indicate that the murder of 20 million (or any number) - resultant of ethnic cleansing, plain hatred, or just for the mere convenience of it - is still considered grounds for condemnation, much less intervention. As a substitute, we have perfected the art of applause and (the closely-related gesture of) hand-wringing.
I could tell that my host’s mindset had not changed in thirty years. Like so many of our “educated” elite, she still clung to the utopian notions of her youth. When did reading and evaluating history go out of fashion? Have there not been books written that clearly chronicle the ultimate, often spectacular failures of communism everywhere it’s been tried? Add to this the tremendous toll in lives lost that frequently accompany the much-vaunted revolutions that invariably kick it off; plus the additional cost to human dignity at the expense of repression, which is commonly required just to maintain such a faithless system. Since when did the nuance in explaining the purpose of a fence (or wall) - to keep people in, as opposed to keeping people out - become irrelevant? What has communism ever been able to offer its devotees except high-sounding prose proclaiming utopian social theory, which in real life quite possibly applies only in a very limited sense to the nuclear human family?
The poor will always find communism attractive not realizing that, if they had their wish, they would never be able to rise above what an (essentially anonymous) State prescribes for them, limiting both, freedom of expression as well as ownership of the goods they might desire, even while being abundantly endowed with of the God-given talents to realize such wants. In addition, they do not understand that under such constraints, as are entirely predictable under communist rule, the shelves are likely to be empty in any case. They will initially applaud the toppling of the high and mighty - giving way to a baser instinct - even as their own opportunity to similarly blossom is cut off at the root.
The young too, will find the opportunity to upset the applecart forever engaging. Just starting out, they have as of yet no significant stake in the future. Indeed, lacking the concept of time, they view themselves as immortal. Therefore, they see themselves as having little or nothing to lose. Perhaps there could even be a chance to pick up something for nothing in the scramble that is bound to follow any upheaval. They seldom recognize that their own impulse to steal stems from the same root that motivates the man who has painstakingly built up his (apple) business over time into an entity that now affords him a legitimate living. Quite dismissive of his sweat and tears, they take his personal effort lightly, equating it glibly with the luck of the draw. What they fail to consider is that the apple seller (short of being shot), will right his cart and continue the business as before; while the apple thief is doomed to continue stealing until someone takes the initiative to break his fingers.
(Similar thinking applies to those seeking the thrill of enlightenment by chemical means, rather than by submitting to years of study, discipline, and concentration.) Without a foundation in ethics, the young are unable to discern the difference between the right way of doing things and the wrong way, seeing only the immediate gratification which, taken by itself, tends to be rather insignificant in comparison to the path (to reach anywhere) which commonly amounts to 99% of any worthwhile effort.
But, what is in it for the rich? It is not the young or the poor, who run the communist propaganda mills, worldwide. It is not the young or poor, who demonize capitalism in our classrooms. It is not the young or the poor, who badmouth our government’s best efforts at every turn from the safety of their Hollywood mansions - or, worse yet, from the dance halls on foreign shores – all, for the sake of cheap applause. It is not the young or the poor who deride elected officials at every opportunity from opposition platforms and on TV talk shows. It is not the young and the poor who proclaim their solidarity with America’s self-proclaimed enemies. It is not the young or the poor who consistently lobby for tax increases while their own fortunes are locked away offshore or in tax-exempt foundations.
Even as salaries remain commensurate with what an individual can be expected to contribute to the bottom line, there comes a point at which money becomes meaningless to the wealthy. Often, commendably, guilt creeps in as the perceived suffering of the less talented takes its toll on the enjoyment of one’s money. At the same time, the arrogance of elitism is also likely to take hold. This is by no means a proper response to guilt; it is not even consistent with the tenets of compassion. It is merely a diversionary tactic designed to massage one’s ego even further. Elitism stems from the notion that any one individual, by virtue of his (self-proclaimed) superior intellect, can dictate what others should or should not do. It culminates in hundreds of crusades for ever-increasing regulations involving everything from cell phones, to tobacco, to guns.
One of the most intrusive tools ever devised to compel a citizenry to tow the line is taxation. Ostensibly, to raise money for public projects, it almost always ends up bleeding over into social engineering. This particular area of governance has become a virtual Disneyland for elitists of all stripes. Forget about streamlining the tax code, which at last count was at least a zillion pages long. Politicians will never consent to giving up the masturbatory thrill of engaging these levers of illusion, thereby continuing to draw division where none exists. Dismissed is the notion of the general populace as a vital, intelligent organism, perfectly capable of managing its own affairs in full accord with intrinsic economic and social laws, forever driving ahead and ultimately raising all boats.
A frequent complaint about capitalism by the Left is that, by its inherent competitive nature, it creates both winners and losers. The fact that, under capitalism, even losers are never denied the opportunity to raise themselves up by their bootstraps is conveniently overlooked. The bibliography section at the local library contains hundreds of examples of losers who have gone on to become winners. The tactic works, however, in that it manages to recruit thousands who find a home in victimhood. These are people who, crippled by their rage or crushed by disappointment, are either unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to improve their lot. They find it infinitely more convenient to rail against straw dogs from the comfort of utter anonymity. Normally ignored, even shunned for exhibiting chronic ill humor, they nevertheless are courted at measured intervals because they too have a vote which they are presumed to exercise.
Most successful societies have always been ones that make room for both, winners as well as losers. The winners are always prepared to think outside the box. They envision the things that will eventually become useful to all. When flat screen TV’s first came to the stores, they cost $10,000 a pop. It was a product produced solely for the rich. The rich bought it and the prices came down. (Had nobody been able to afford it initially, the whole idea would have been still-born.) Prices continued to come down as more and more people are came aboard. Homebuilders are thinking ahead, now designing many new houses with indentations in living room walls for the express purpose of creating a specific space for the installation of home theater systems.
This story repeats itself again and again with each new invention or gadget that enters the market. Take cell phones, for example. At first, these too cost more than what most of us could readily afford. Now, nearly everybody uses them. Sometimes I think I’m the only hold-out left. Just the other day I saw a common laborer, dressed in nothing more than a loincloth, talking on his cell phone while walking barefoot on his way to work. With everything we use to make our lives more productive or enjoyable, it took the rich to prime the pump initially. These are the very same people who, the Left now insists, must either be shot or taxed to death.
Elitism always runs contrary to faith. Market forces, though marginally predictable, are largely beyond the control of any one individual or ideology. The credit for any good that may come of a healthy economy must rightly go to all those participating in it. Politicians tend to shun the idea of having no effective role to play in something so vital - apart from a willingness to leave it alone.
The most effective lure of communism, however, is that it does away with God which is mistakenly believed to free man from his conscience. The more fervently sinners proclaim their sin as acceptable - even sacred - the greater is the discord that builds both internally and externally. The chasms thus created are epic – a politician’s dream!
Religion is the single most formidable roadblock to the spread of communism worldwide. People, happily confident in their spiritual core, are not so easily swayed by empty rhetoric. They recognize the greater hand behind appearances and tend not to look to other men to solve their own problems. As such, they are apt to behave in accordance to the strictures set forth by their faith. These generally claim a moral basis that goes well beyond two-dimensional judicial fiat in that they, in addition to prosecuting actual offences, also give due weight to (right) intent(ion), in the Buddhist sense.
One of the very first acts any communist government executes is to ban religion. It has been demonstrated that once a people’s spiritual moorings have eroded, they are more easily manipulated. A worldwide communist resurgence has been underway for some time now. With the fall of the Soviet Union, communism did not go away. Its followers simply regrouped and went about organizing their movement from within the institutions that have traditionally defined Western democratic values. As such, they have succeeded in recruiting the intellectual class to attack the religious at every turn, accusing them of extremism, intolerance, and outright stupidity. Men and women of faith are routinely ridiculed in the press as well as in the arts. A crucifix immersed in urine, once prominently displayed at a major New York museum, has become the symbol for the drive to strip religion of its gravitas. It is now no longer fashionable to believe in God; the sacred and the profane have been deliberately fused into one amalgam that can be regarded as neither profane nor sacred. In a competitive world, where the edge is sometimes difficult to pin down, it is often easiest to gloss over one’s own deficiencies by identifying oneself with the labels that define the Zeitgeist.
Today, the only religion that is immune from criticism is Islam. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all. Therefore, one never hears Western intellectuals uttering a single harsh word even against Islam’s worst excesses. And God help those who do!
For those desperate enough to cast off the chains of conscience, communism claims to provide the solution: Do away with religion, and you will be able to continue living the immoral lifestyle that has become a painful habit to so many. There is no need to be reborn, no cause to worry about punishment in the afterlife. God is dead; you can relax. There is no one here to judge you. In return, of course, you must give up your soul. It is a small price to pay (nothing at all, really) for cradle-to-grave healthcare; incessant propaganda (excuse me, what I meant to say was “entertainment”); guaranteed employment during your productive years (only, we decide where you work); guaranteed housing (only, we decide where you will live), etc. We will even provide you with uniforms once you have rendered yourself worthy by ratting out enough of your friends. We will, of course, make sure that nobody has any more (or less) than you do. We will all be equal, so that nobody will have anything to bitch about.
Assuming that anyone would be so gullible as to actually welcome such governance, he would soon find that, although the church has been bombed and the priest shot, his conscience has still not been quieted. A sin is still a sin, and all the sedatives in the world can do nothing to change that. He will soon enough begin to feel duped, much like the suicide bomber who fully expected the favors of seventy-two virgins after blowing himself to smithereens in some pizza parlor in downtown Jerusalem.
I now live in a place (Tamil Nadu, India) that boasts of being one of the oldest continuous cultures in existence. I have seen its dances, its temples; I have heard its music. To my comparatively uninitiated eyes and ears, it all looks and sounds so benignly chaotic. Only, it’s not! In dance, every flutter of the eyelids signifies something, to say nothing of the hands and feet; every shade of color used to paint the icons that grace the (temple) gopuram has meaning; in song, every note is carefully choreographed to cleave to a precise protocol that has existed for centuries.
This leads me to conclude that nothing is random, though we often would prefer to think otherwise. Every religion has its protocol. Communism, for those who believe in it, is nothing less than a religion. Its protocol is well developed. The fervor with which it is promoted rivals Islam’s. It behooves every American to recognize the protocol of communism; to understand what is happening and why. The trashing of (other) religion(s), for example, is essential to the protocol of communism; as is the trashing of the traditional family; as is the idea of income redistribution through taxation; as is the casual dismissal of law and borders; as is the trivializing of education, particularly as relates to the study of history. I could go on, but the intent of this writing is not curatorial. Others have done so far more effectively without having felt compelled to take a stand.
First, a people must decide what kind of world they want their children to inherit. If they happen to be advocates for change, they have to be prepared to fight, realizing that there are many more who are perfectly content with the status quo. Those, who believe in upholding their traditions, too have to become engaged, knowing there are those who would want them crushed. Once a decision has been taken, one must commit oneself. No movement, even one that seeks to preserve what presently exists, has room for armchair cynics.
I realize that my views here run contrary to those commonly held within the halls of modern academia where logic - for some time now - has been stood on its head in an effort to support the insupportable. Were I asked to speak on just about any campus in America today, any number of rabble would immediately mobilize to disrupt my presentation. The nation’s centers of higher learning no longer tolerate divergent views. They have become insular and, in many ways, out of touch with the general public, which is admittedly divided on issues but still quite capable of conducting a reasonable debate.
When I attended college in the early 70’s, my school and most others like it prided itself in its effort to impart the discipline of critical thinking. “Consider everything” ran the mantra, “and then draw your own conclusion.” Today, everything academic is spoon-fed with a hard left slant. Even scientific research is has been politically poisoned. Global warming, for example, is routinely used to bash the U.S., accusing it of being the primary cause of imminent world-wide ecological collapse. The thrust of this attack is two-fold: First, to turn public opinion against government policies designed to protect the country’s economic base; and, second, to exact reparations on behalf of nations deemed victims of such policies. It is always an effective propaganda tool to broadcast the anguished faces of flood or draught survivors and then claim that your neighbor’s SUV has caused this and every other horror.
Contrary (scientific) views on global warming, specifically as relates to the nature of its cause, never see the light of day as such research never receives funding or media attention. How many are aware, for instance, that the ice caps on Mars are melting (as well)? (See National Geographic News: “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human Cause for Warming, Scientist Says”, by Kate Ravilious, February, 28th 2007) (The) last I heard, America has not yet been there to sell even a single automobile. Would this not indicate that something far greater than mankind’s mere exhalations is in play here? Perhaps, as Habibullo Abdussamantov - head of Space Research at St. Petersburg Pulkova Astronomical Observatory - suggests, it’s all simply a matter of the sun getting hotter!
Logic be damned! Balance? Reason? Who needs it? It is precisely because of such blatant disregard of politically incorrect fact in our schools that many of our children are no longer motivated to invest in America by making the effort to learn the three R’s; much less, study the sciences, history and civic responsibility. Indeed, many urban schools no longer offer such disciplines. If kids come away with anything at all after graduation, it is likely to be with the moronic conviction that their country sucks because it single-mindedly sets out to destroy the planet with its wars and toxic emissions. In addition, they are likely to believe that their duly elected leader is a crook for stealing the election from another, simply for the opportunity to attack a peaceful nation for dark and sinister motives involving either oil or Israel or both. 9/11/02, on which date almost three thousand Americans were murdered in cold blood, is never discussed or shown on TV (except in the context of the President himself having had a hand in it), lest it arouse suspicions of America’s legitimate obligation to defend herself.
Leftists love controversies. Most are fabricated out of whole cloth: feigned outrage over innocuous comments; unsubstantiated leaks; forged documents; etc. They effectively use the useful idiots in the press to stoke the fires of every arson attack (often attributable to their own) that serves to weaken trust in American institutions. Good economic news during Republican administrations is never reported without caveat. Seven unruly recruits putting women’s panties on imprisoned terrorists’ heads occupy the headlines for months. Incidents, involving the beheading of American soldiers on video tape and later found lying disemboweled in some Baghdad gutter, receive barely a mention. A (former) left-leaning President, having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, gets a pass while those questioning his character are tagged with the p(olitically) c(orrect) sin of intolerance.
By this kind of coverage, the Left hopes to destroy the nation’s will to survive and collapse in on itself. Not a day goes by without some politician seeking favorable press coverage by vocally lobbying for America’s defeat in its war on terror. At the same time, not a word of published criticism is ever directed at America’s enemies for fear of offending like-minded allies. The stoning of women, for example, is perfectly alright with the feminists, all of whom hate Bush (or any man). And PETA, with well-established leftist credentials, doesn’t raise an eyebrow, even when confronted with the Muslim practice of cutting off an animal’s leg for food and then keeping it alive so that the rest of its meat will be kept fresh for subsequent meals.
Coming from another planet and consulting the newspapers for clues as to what goes on here, one is sure to get the impression that America is indeed the center of all that is hateful; that all the other nations exhibit nothing short of harmonious perfection, and that everyone would live happily ever after if only America would just go away.
The end game is to turn public opinion against an America that many see as having become too successful. It is an attempt to plant the seeds of doubt in the electorate, so that they might be coerced into changing direction. In the rest of the world, this has already happened. I talk to my father (who has settled in Brazil) several times a year. His anti-Americanism is always just barely contained and bordering on the pathological. On the other hand, I constantly meet Brazilians who have emigrated to the U.S., hoping to escape the political and social chaos there, where armored cars are now required to ferry one’s kids to and from school. In my father’s eyes, the reasons for Brazil’s shortcomings can always be traced back to America’s doorstep.
In India, the welcome I experienced here 30 years ago is no longer quite as enthusiastic. This is no big mystery. Several mornings a week, I too read Paul Krugman’s New York Times column in The Hindu, our local paper. Unlike in America, where the majority of people have very little interest in news, every political development at home and abroad is closely watched. Indian’s think that President Bush is either dumb or evil. America’s own news outlets trumpet both positions daily. We literally export our own bad press. (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quotes Noam Chomsky from the floor of the United Nations, for God’s sake!) Indians (as well as Brazilians) do not have access to conservative commentaries as Americans do on their radio dials. I recently spoke to a senior news assessor for Reuters here in India. He is a thoughtful, gentle man in his seventies with several lifetimes of experience under his belt. He was unaware of something that every American news junky knows: (that) The New York Times slants left.
At this moment, America finds herself engaged on two separate fronts. One is the much-maligned war on terror. Precisely because the country has been unprepared to conduct a campaign of this type, it has taken it a long time to own up to the threat. 9/11 forced America’s hand. It served to provoke 60% of Americans into supporting some sort of response. Even so, the tools at America’s disposal have shown themselves to be woefully inadequate to the task. Geared to fighting conventionally backed armies, U.S. forces are finding themselves at loggerheads when pitted against determined ideologies that know no borders.
If asked, Americans would agree overwhelmingly that they would not wish to face the option of either, submitting to shariah law or die. Yet, roughly, a vocal quarter of our population sees the Islamic threat also as an opportunity to advance their own lifestyle agendas. As such, they are quite willing to gamble away their nation’s advantage on the global stage in a dangerous, time-sensitive farce.
This brings us to the second front, where the left wing has made its home. It consists of a broad variety of single-issue groups who have banded together, united only by their hatred of America as it is presently configured. The most prominent (largely anonymous) presence among these are the communists. Lacking overt support in a country where the poorest of the poor tend to be overweight, they have had to form alliances with people they would ordinarily despise. Among these are blacks, gays, what is left of the women’s lib crowd, environmentalists, one-world advocates, and anyone else who might be dissatisfied in some way and can get ten people and a fax machine together under one roof. Marching in lock-step, they have effectively taken over the weaker of the two political parties to drive agendas that are aimed at disfiguring the nation. Now even within the normally dynamic chambers of Washington governance, America finds herself hopelessly divided, allowing a whole host of desperately pressing issues to fester and become cancerous. Everything from foreign policy to healthcare, to immigration (among many other concerns) is currently spiraling out of control with no one prepared to take the reigns. This may be indicative of the failure of the executive branch to articulate a clear and compelling vision, as some analysts suggest. Others see it more accurately, perhaps, attributing the current legislative gridlock to a President who has been under siege from his first day in office by an opposition party that has never acknowledged his legitimacy and, as such, refuses compromise on any issue for the sole purpose of denying him a legacy. It is the same tactic used by separatists and insurgents the world over who seek to win wars of attrition by keeping their targets destabilized. They are likely at some point to gain the sympathetic nod of so-called moderates who wish to appear heroic without risk or sacrifice. After it has become abundantly clear that compromise is never a viable option, a significant number of these (moderate) appeasers can be counted on to switch sides and betray their own cause. This is the chink, once it has been pried from the levy, that will open the floodgates, yielding ever greater concessions (including legitimacy) to the undeserving, certainly enough to continue the revolt (until, as has happened recently in Nepal, where the Maoists are now in a position to demand the crown).
As much as the ultimate outcome of the war on terror is critical to America’s future, so too is her ability to recognize the communist threat from within. Both are ideologically driven, and require an effective response. Guns and bombs no longer work. Insofar as we give lip service to the need for changing the hearts and minds of our enemies, we are on the verge of admitting failure in this objective as well. Even as our intellectual class tie themselves into knots, attempting to tutor the world in our failings, the lesson appears to be lost on the millions who continue to stream across our borders in record numbers.
It is the rouge element among us that must be exposed; their agendas revealed. This is never easy, as transparency is not a prominent feature of communist protocol. At the same time, we must protect our liberties at all cost. These are, and will continue to be, the source of our strength. Given the assaults we are facing on every front, freedom of speech will increasingly come under pressure. As we have seen, already the Left is loath to entertain conservative views on college campuses and in its outlets in the media. Make no mistake, this is sign of weakness. We, as Americans, cannot stoop to preventing an ideological opponant from getting his message out. Neither can we dispense with proper elections. What we can do is confidently counter any false or weak argument with the truth as we live it. The truth, so the saying goes, always wins out in the end. As such, truth equates with power. Some may feign power by deception. They can never succeed, for even the weakest among us who accept their weakness without equivocation are bound to win any legitimate struggle when pitted against another who is rift with delusion. Therefore, it is up to those running for office to be extremely articulate in pitching their case. Conservatives will no doubt find the job more daunting, given the media bias against them.
2008 will feature the next major election in America. To date, countless millions have been spent by the candidates (mostly on cosmetics), already guaranteeing a severely skewed result. Already a theme has been selected. “Change” appears to have become the battle cry to accompany the political pageantry. “Change to what?” continues to echo in my own mind and in the minds of anyone whose capacity to penetrate issues may be only marginally greater than the thickness of an oil slick on water. What change is it that the people would find so attractive? Is it a change from the policies that have assured our prosperity; our position of influence in world affairs? Has our loathing of success become so deep that we are now willing to risk emulating failure (just for something different)? Are we prepared to dispense with our faith in markets in favor of (cigar) smoke-filled backroom solutions crafted by greedy, self-centered politicians who distort the Constitution to conform to their elitist designs? Have we forgotten our history lessons?
Countries like, Cuba, Russia, China and (recently) Venezuela (now closely aligned with Mugabe’s Zimbabwe) are routinely given favorable coverage in our press. Isn’t it strange that none of those advocating in favor of such places on our air and in our newspaper columns have any intentions of packing up and going to live there? – but I digress.
The results of the 2008 election will give us a clearer picture of America’s current disposition toward itself and toward the world at large. It will likely show a greater willingness to appease the Left. It is doubtful that the voters themselves will see it that way. Most are simply intrigued by the prospect of seeing a woman or a black man at the helm (something that has never happened before but has suddenly become a distinct possibility). It is this season’s Democrat male candidate’s (dare I say it) entirely cosmetic skin tone that has intrigued most of the world’s people of color who for some unexplained reason place a high premium on the lighter shades to the exclusion of any other consideration including proven ability or ideology. On the other side, few will realize that Bush is no longer in the running and automatically cast their vote against anyone with the letter “R” next to his or her name (in brackets).
The notion of one world, hobbled and sullied by mankind, remains. Beginning in the ‘60’s, militant movements, ostensibly formed for the purpose of protecting the earth, gained traction and support within significant political quarters. It is no accident that there has been no oil exploration since in America. Neither have enough power-generating facilities been built - not to mention oil refineries - even as we are rapidly approaching the limits of the energy the country can provide for continued economic expansion. With regard to oil, we already are heavily dependent on nations some of whom have chosen to exploit our dependence to influence foreign policy decisions that often run contrary to our own self-interests.
At the same time, reams of propaganda were routinely distributed to our schools showing pristine acreage side-by-side with less-than-flattering photographs of man-built structures, all designed to elicit responses of panic and shame among those in their impressionable years who, with the same stroke, are prevented from appreciating the miracle of their heated homes in winter and a/c in summer. Neither are the benefits of economic development explained as it relates to a population’s general well-being.
Still, today, Americans are constantly besieged by the notion that they are complicit in the largest, most successful economy in the world - not within the context of worthy achievement, but - as representative of the twin evils of unchecked greed and gluttonous appetites. This strategy has been roundly effective in that if one were to conduct a survey in most American classrooms today, one would find that 100% of the students believe in Al Gore’s 'global warming' theory and that it is almost entirely America’s fault. 50% of those, even while believing, simply don’t care. 50% of those who do care would never consider traveling overseas because they are ashamed of being American. A significant percentage of those no longer salute the American flag in school and at sporting events. A somewhat lesser number, perhaps, could feel entirely comfortable wearing obscene or anti-American t-shirts in public. A handful would not be averse to joining forces with al-Qaeda in its on-going struggle against the West. Thankfully, only a few would actually consider bringing guns to school with the intent of blowing their classmates and teachers away. Such is the state of the American public and private education today. It gets even worse when we come to realize that the country’s future hinges on those who simply couldn’t care less.
All of us have faithfully followed the progression of ever increasing violence in our schools. After each horrific incident, a call for the greater restrictions on legally obtained firearms is raised. This is a standard, though misguided, response by knee-jerk anti-gun activists who continue to ignore the fact that such behavior is consistently underwritten by school curricula as well as by mass media ideologues who would like nothing better than to see America crushed and the red flag raised over the White House. While we wallow in guilt of our own success, the rest of the world is already chomping at the bit to relieve us of our prosperity by any number of UN-inspired schemes, unbowed by any possible consequences to polar ice caps. Even this base, but entirely human, impulse is viewed by those of the most radical persuasion through the twisted lens in which America appears as deranged arsonist wantonly igniting the fires of capitalism around the world.
Existing under our myopic condition of profound innocence, we keep harboring the illusion that all the world’s people are exactly like us: reasonably well informed and free to take decisions. As we find ourselves habitually bored to tears with our neat suburban homes and cardboard cut-out families - believing that nothing can fundamentally shake us free from our loveless obligations; that public policy reversals are eternally possible even if we do happen to slip up in the voting booth - we tend to discount the sacrifice of the heroes who in good conscience have made it all possible for us. We have become so impatient for a cause that would test our limits, even to the point of tacitly embracing the causes of our enemies. In a similar vein, we never think of the citizens of failed nations - encumbered with less effective heroes (perhaps) - who are fated to suffer decades of dictatorial oppression on one hand or utter chaos on the other, except (of course) within the context of a legitimate choice they are presumed to have made. We never think of our own laws and taxes which, once passed by our legislators, are almost never officially repealed, even decades after the need for them has passed, thus illustrating the undying monster of anything officially put to paper. We think of ourselves as being eternally exempt from brutal and corrupt governance by the sheer force of our unspoken will. As such, we tend to see suicide bombings abroad, the stoning of women, beheadings, genital mutilations, gulags and the like as quaint, idiosyncratic cultural expressions (similar to the French custom of men having mistresses and Germans eating Bratwurst and drinking beer) to be read about in obscure volumes in the warm comfort of wood-paneled rooms.
Some time ago, I was watching a television program based on the book, THE POWER OF MYTHS by Joseph Campbell. In it the puberty rites of some far-flung island tribe was shown in graphic detail. It seems they pick the prettiest girl and the handsomest of the boys in their midst and compel them to make love inside a structure specially built for the occasion. At some point, others pull out the supports and the roof, laden with stones, collapses, crushing the couple inside while the entire village looks on. It was presented without comment. “It is not one world,” Paul Harvey continues to say
Who are we to judge, anyway? Our media tells us every day that we too have blood on our hands (starting with the Indians). Our every exhaled breath is said to pollute the atmosphere, threatening the existence of everything that requires air to sustain itself. We are urged to forgo having children (to reduce our personal carbon footprint) as a trade-off to taking yearly Caribbean vacations. Driving our cars to the supermarket or to work is said to endanger polar bears and people living in low-lying island nations. Our factories and power plants are said to cause draughts in Africa and killer rains in Sumatra. Our policy to protect Israeli Jews from genocide risks countless generations’ blind hatred towards us, resulting in endless terrorist threats at home and abroad. Why bother to protect ourselves? Do we, as self-proclaimed blight on humanity, even deserve a place at the table? (Make no mistake, the condemnation of ourselves originates from within our own borders, from where it is then taken and enthusiastically echoed abroad.)
Those comfortably ensconced in their ivory towers calmly expound, “Let them launch rockets; crash planes; let them snipe at our heels. Let them draw blood. What is three thousand “Hitlers” killed at the World Trade Center when put up against so many millions from around the globe who are storming our gates to demand their just revenge? They are, after all, the innocent victims of our own racism, exploitation and oppression.” In a godless world we can only bow and scrape and hand out Clintonesque pardons for crimes (of “mismanagement” never) committed by those who may well be incapable of committing crimes simply by virtue of their (victim) status. “By our own definition, only the powerful can be guilty. It’s our clever way of removing the words ‘enemy’ and ‘evil’ from the lexicon and adding the concept of ‘surrender’ to our options.”
And the students, showing that they had understood the lesson, shout in unison, “Let someone else be powerful so we can be at ease and fade into the background (surely, while reading Margaret Meade without daring to comment) as the sweat of our fathers is fussed over and divided (like Jesus’ robe) to be doled out to the poor who will now presumably be happy”.
It’s come to be engraved in the spirit of our age that the time is ripe for America to disappear. The world can no longer afford to co-habit with a country that by its mere presence exposes corrupt governance for the spectacular failure it all too often exhibits. Equality is the buzzword for a trend that is sweeping the land masses. What the intellectual elite underwriting this view are failing to consider is that there are two kinds of equality: Equality in results and equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, these cannot exist simultaneously. Understandably, the media, dealing largely in appearances, considers only the former when constructing its template. Sumptuously laden buffet tables are shown on a split-screen along with a hungry child, implying that something of what’s on the table should be given to the child. If it were in fact that simple, why didn’t the camera man do it? He was there!
Equality of opportunity is a far more difficult concept in that it involves a leap of faith. It takes faith to believe that a people, secure and left to their own devices, will figure out a way to prosper; that freedom (not equality) is the operative word that applies to any society that has been deemed successful by modern standards.
Academia, too, finds itself imprisoned by the limits of empiricism, i.e., that which can be counted or weighed. Together both (the media and academia) are attempting to force the imposition of two-dimensional solutions to multi-faceted situations that, if implemented, are doomed to fail dramatically (assuming that in the aftermath a distinction between success and failure can even be drawn). Picture the world as a broader version of Zimbabwe or the Palestinian Territories where the inmates have effectively taken over the asylum; where the freedom to inflict horror now reigns supreme; where all that counts is that the white oppressors have been kicked out - along with the Jews, of course. It is they, after all, who have had the audacity to introduce the world to a God who is capable of drawing the distinction between spiritual and secular matters, each with a separate set of parameters by which to gauge one’s fall from grace. Getting rid of them also gets rid of Him, and now we are free to do what we want (as long, of course, as He remembers to keep the lights on).
Change, we are told, will make the world a better place; a virtual utopia, in fact. Everyone will be equal (except some will be more equal than others). Those capable of orchestrating the most audacious atrocities will claim the throne, reducing the rest of us to rubberstamp party dunces, eternally living in fear of being found out to be human after all. Goodbye to progress, welcome in empty shelves; goodbye to competition, welcome in mediocrity; goodbye to free passage, welcome in checkpoints; goodbye to the arts and sciences, welcome in propaganda; good-bye to free expression, welcome in gulags. Welcome to the degradation of the human spirit off which communism feeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
