Cornerstone

For a long time now, money has trumped ideology. This is no longer the case – especially now that every dollar essentially amounts to an IOU. The ideologies of China and the Islamists share only a disgust of corrupted capitalism. Otherwise, they differ in significant ways. After the West has been defeated, these differences will come to the fore and begin to cause problems. China will have to tread pretty carefully for their alliance with Pakistan to work. In the Islamist’s eyes, they too are infidels, tolerated only because they are now brothers in arms.

Seldom discussed (except on Thursdays on The John Batchelor Show) is the pivotal role of Israel. We can pretty much predict how Israel is likely to react to an imminent existential threat for it shares our own sensibilities. Since Obama’s one vote-one man-one time election, it is rather our reaction to an attack on Israel that remains a question. I predict we will do nothing – this despite the clamor of the American people to step in to help.

Whether by its own effort or with the aid of someone else, Israel will survive. India may rise to the role of Good Samaritan. It has a strong a spiritual tradition and will inherently understand what is at stake. Do not summarily reject the spiritual dimension in all this; and don’t rule out China. They might well jump in as well, seeking to profit from the purely practical aspect of doing so. The Islamists will be defeated as they have defiled their religion. America will stand disgraced on the sidelines for the same reason.

And ‘the stone the builders rejected will once again become the cornerstone’ – Psalm 118:22.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

View from India: Beginning and End

by Parvathi

Last week saw a beginning and an end. The beginning was the wedding of Kate and William, the current sweethearts of Britain, and the end was the death of Sathya Sai Baba, spiritual guru to millions around the world.

Both sparked endless chatter on the tube and on the virtual networks. My son told me in disgust "They are still showing the wedding on most of the channels!" and it is now two days after the event. Well, there are enough and more people who want to watch it! "Colonial hangover" you might call it; but, no, it is something much deeper than that. Sai Baba's funeral was watched live over the television, again, by millions who mourn his passing like they would their own kith and kin. It is time now to ask why, and let us then like the Red King says "Begin at the beginning."

Kate and William stand for romance and love both very elusive values in this increasingly rushed present life styles where only money really calls the shots. Anything that simply exists for the pure beauty of itself is quickly swept aside for gains, so there go love and romance unless they come with the grinning sidekicks of power and pelf. The royal sweethearts are dream symbols that "love will find a way" in the tradition of Diana who turned away from a cold, loveless marriage. Princess Katherine, Kate as the Brits are wont to call her in their very Anglo Saxon way, is a commoner and therefore the romantic angle gets another boost. Then of course there is the done to death pageantry of the House of Windsor. Rationalization seems to have slowly killed the joy of celebrations in the developed world. Not so in this part of the planet, we still have much to hope for and more to celebrate in hopes of better things to come, and therefore we are a celebratory people. Good for us. Every festival is a huge celebration of colors, smells, sound and taste. Here, religion is a living breathing tradition and God ceases to be abstract and is part of the medley of life: a young impish boy, a dutiful son and husband, a faithful and beautiful wife, a lovable glutton ...the list is endless. They all fit into the normal register of life, and therefore represents a transaction with God on a personal basis.

This is where Sathya Sai comes in. The tirade against him has been there for decades and it is mostly from the rationalists who seem to hate his guts for performing miracles. What's wrong with miracles? Does only rhetoric have value? Don't we all want miracles in one way or the other? And also, if Sathya Sai had not performed miracles, could he have manged to catch the attention of the masses? The miracles are NOT important inasmuch the loaves of bread and the water to wine at Cana are not the pivot on which Christianity turns.

People get curious, they come to scoff, see, and as we saw, remained en masse to pray. When there is darkness at noon, one needs faith that the sun will come out again, and that is the surety that Sai Baba gave millions around the world and they are the better for it. Better because there he was a living breathing, smiling, talking entity you could tell your troubles to, and he had answers. What is faith if it is not a psychological crutch? Why berate it? Look at the practical efficacy of confession among the Roman Catholics. It does one good to go every week and confess everything to the good and holy father in the confessional. The wonderful thing about it is that you don't see each other. Anonymity helps clear the air. So, you confess and are pardoned; told to say a dozen Hail Marys and you come out having got it off your chest. Never has anything more practical been ever thought of. They knew, those crafty cardinals and popes the psychological angle of faith. Today the confessional has been replaced by the psychiatrist's couch, but are there enough takers? Does it really help?

Do the rationalists bother to mention Sathya Sai's charity? What matters the most is that Sai Baba gave enormously back to society.

His epitaph should read: "You receive but what you give."

Getting Churchill's Bust Back

Socialism/Communism (whatever you want to call it) is a cancer. There was a time in our history when Communism was shunned in this country. We fought bloody wars to contain it - not always successfully. We knew all along there were Communist in our own country and they needed to hide lest they be found out and publicly shamed.

Communism, as I’ve said many times before, has all the earmarks of a religion that includes proselytizing (in its mildest form) all the way up to and including jihad (as practiced by modern-day Islam). They’re extremely well organized and persistent. They know they can’t win at the ballot box, so they’re ready to exploit every weakness in the system and turn it to their advantage. 'Jimmy of Brooklyn', a frequent New York talk show caller, was right all along. You don’t hear much of him anymore, but he had the goods as far back as in the 80’s. He was always made fun of and treated as a loon, even by so-called conservative hosts. And yet, twenty year later, here we have it, just as Jimmy predicted.

One of the ways the commies get around the natural resistance to Communism is by changing the language. “Communist” was changed to “liberal”. And then, when “liberal” was exposed, they changed it to “progressive”. And now “Democrat” is the acceptable (stealth) term. (I may have the order wrong, but you get the point.) Most of the regular Democrats have been drummed out of the party.

Republicans are now being infiltrated as well. At least, their resistance has been compromised to the point where it is no longer possible to tell who is who in the party. People are quick to assume that the reason Republicans are so ineffective is out of timidity or simply a lack of experience in leadership. Don’t be so sure of that. The Left has many masks. Weeping John Boehner may well know what he’s doing, having been assigned his part in the ‘good cop/bad cop’ routine where both are playing the same side.

An important election is coming up in 2012. The Left will stop at nothing; repeat: NOTHING, to get their way. In some ways it’s do or die for us. Do not respond to ‘crisis’ or threats of crisis. Do not respond to empty promises. Look carefully at the men (or women) who are running. Any openly declared leftist, vote no. Anyone promising to reach across the aisle, vote no. We can no longer afford to compromise with these people.

Also look at the media to see whom they are out to demonize. Palin was a perfect example. Trump is next to be sliced, diced and thrown overboard. Even the Batchelor Show is poised to take part in the fun. We may find out that Trump can swim. He is said to be a real estate mogul. How is it he survived the housing slump? Must be a very crafty guy, quick on his feet; competent. If he should lose the Republican nomination, he said he would run in a third party slot. Conventional wisdom has it that this would split the party and Obama would win.

The most attractive thing about Trump is that he is a patriot. I don’t necessarily see this in any other prospective candidate. Romney is a politician - and has been. He’ll say anything. All the others, excepting Palin, are lesser versions of Romney.

Can Trump win? I think he can. First, second or third party, Trump could win. And he could be the Churchill of our times. …and, believe me, we have reached the point where we are desperately in need of a Churchill. It’s the only way we can ever get his bust back.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Soros' Collapsing Structures

It is astounding to me: Obama and leftist Democrats are now openly advocating bankruptcy. Just as they marched in lockstep to encourage military defeat in Iraq, they are now doing everything they can to steer our nation toward insolvency. To this purpose, they are willing to take and hold innumerable hostages. The military, old people, children – all are being used as pawns to insure that there is no agreement on the budget, thus forcing a government shutdown (to be summarily blamed on Republicans). The liberal media, instead of portraying this as a welcome respite from reckless government spending, proclaim this to be no less than Armageddon, continuing to do the best they can to let liberals get their way.

While some of us are falling for the ploy, there are indications that the majority of the American people are not. They expect to see at least some glimmer of fiscal reform, and they expect it to start today. They are fully vested in seeing that our nation continue along the path on which it had been (before Obama). To them insolvency is not an option. Yet, insolvency is precisely what Obama and his Democrats are striving to achieve. Stoking fears about the 800,000 (jobless) and Yellowstone closing are merely ancillary adjuncts to grab headlines in the short run. Down the road looms default when everything - including their sainted abortion clinics - shuts down; and that, they expect, will signal that the new (world) order has crawled out of Ahmedinejad’s well.

Nobody can be quite sure what happens next. We envision pure chaos on every front. In chaos there are no longer any rules. Existing contracts and bank accounts all turn to dust and are swept away by the random breeze. This is their goal. They are convinced they can survive even that. They believe that the old system can conveniently collapse into the new one, the structure for which already stands waiting. If you’ve ever been to a union or communist rally, that’s all you hear.

Unelected George Soros knows exactly what this new structure looks like as he is the architect of it. He sees a way forward, even if the rest of us don’t. We do not have any other options. Insolvency ends it. Hence, we feel that we must take steps to avoid it at all costs. Moderate Republicans in the House and Senate do not yet appreciate the danger. They are still willing to compromise. The Dems, on the other hand, are singularly committed. They can already smell the blood in the water. Total collapse is near... and they will have won. They, and their patron saint Soros, are confident that the new structure will be there to catch them – while sweeping away all the non-believers.

At first, there was chaos; and within it (by mere chance) there was an echo, which then opened up the possibility of reproducing something exactly like the first. Then came order and all the rest.

Tell me again that communism is not a religion.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Looking Beyond Corpses

Broadly speaking, there are four groups that are currently trying to overthrow the United States: anarchists, communists, Islamists and opportunists. Anarchists are in it just to wreak havoc; communists harbor an ideology that borders on religious fanaticism; ditto, Islamists; and, finally, opportunists, those who seek maximum profit for themselves in the wake of upheaval. The latter can be compared to those who during past wars haunted battlefields, looking for corpses from which to extract dental work.

All four have united and are waging war against the rest of us. While anarchists and Islamists still hide their faces, the other two have revealed themselves fully. They no longer feel the need to hide their intent. It’s just that we do not believe them. We do not believe that anything could possibly pose an existential threat to the country we hold dear. And, for the time being, they are right to exploit our willful – almost child-like - ignorance to their advantage.

All the important thresholds have already been crossed. We’ve crossed the threshold of ‘how bad can it get’ and accepted ‘new norms’. We’ve accepted the public media lynching of upstanding citizens. We’ve accepted turning our backs on faithful allies. We have discounted the importance family, religion and work. We’ve stood by while our system of education teeters on the brink of total failure. We’ve watched as our investments as well as our currency continue to operate on life support.

The next step, most would now agree, is collapse. And we are compelled to ask the question: “How do we protect ourselves?”

This question is key. It points the way to what we can expect afterwards. The word “protect” is telling. Already, ads responding to this very concept abound: buy gold; buy food (food storage); protect your computer; protect your identity; your health; etc. The protection rackets (opportunists) are already out in force. They signal collapse. What they don’t tell us is what will come after, when none will be left standing, when the rules totally change and revert back to basics: faith, family and the overwhelming desire to rebuild.

Rebuilding is embedded in our DNA - like language. Strength of character and goodness cannot be erased. Neither will talent, and a willingness to overcome adversity. Together we will build ourselves up and even surpass heights previously achieved - because that’s who we are.

Some say I’m a pessimist. I am not. I believe that goodness will triumph over evil every time. I believe the pendulum will continue to swing. Take heart, we’re about to reverse course.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Drifting

Just finished a delightful book, “The Village By The Sea” by Anita Desai. It tells of a family in rural India - the father is a drunk, the mother is sick and dying, their 13-year old daughter is running the household, her 12-year old brother runs off to Bombay; there are also two young (school-age) girls - life looks very bleak indeed for this unfortunate family.

However, things change. And when things can’t get much worse, they often get better. The trick to survival, the author tells us, is keeping the faith. As long as you have hands and fingers to work, there’s hope.

America has had it pretty good for a long time. There’s nothing here even close to approaching conditions that exist for many Indians even now. We are often told that poverty leads to crime; that religion is all that enforces the ‘goodness’ of man; and if not religion, it is the state that must be the final arbiter in any matter.

In Desai’s book, religion plays practically no role, and neither does the state. People are ‘good’ by nature, despite their faults.

We know where Obama stands on the issue of poverty. For him, the ultimate solution is always the state. It is a philosophy he shares with Hu Jintao, his current White House guest.

Americans are almost evenly divided on the issue. Many believe that rolling back the state will bring about untold disaster. Slightly more believe that the state itself is the cause of disaster.

It is likely that we will keep vacillating between the two extremes for some time to come. Meanwhile change is inevitable. This is another theme of “Village”. Change must not necessarily be bad. It can be neutral. When Obama answers a reporter’s question by saying that “China has a different political system than we do…” he is absolutely right. He was also speaking honestly when he said that he intends to transform America.

Americans should have been astute enough to ask what exactly he meant by that. Did he mean to ease America into the Chinese system, or the Islamic system; or did he envision himself as the author of a brand-new system that has never been tried before?

We are perplexed as we watch our president work. He seems to dismiss the American system entirely. To him it is a hated relic of the past. And yet, much of what he ends up doing is following along in our previous president’s footsteps - clearly without conviction.

Perhaps Obama is impatient. He cannot wait for the changes that will come naturally. He pouts and threatens perceived enemies. He pushes and prods. And yet, he is most popular when he’s on vacation.

As far as the public is concerned, Obama’s principle problem is that he has told us nothing. He hasn’t articulated his plan. We seem to be drifting. He tells us “we’re going there“, and we end up here. And then he tells us “here is there”. It’s not something that inspires much confidence.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Reply to Corlyss D

Not quite (insane). It’s always been there. In fact it’s hard-wired into the human condition. I’m talking about religion. Progressivism is a religion. High priests comprise the State. It comes complete with sins (littering), sacraments (abortion), rituals (protest marches), denominations (splinter groups), proselytizing (propaganda), ash cloth and salvation. God, of course, is Gaia, the Earth Mother. Today, it is as virulent as Islam.

Before it came ‘the divine right of kings’ and feudalism. Democracy is its exact opposite. Democracy confers rights to the individual. Power extends from the grass roots. It was a rare but bold experiment. And it led to unparalleled success for the people who dared to take this leap of faith. It required an educated public and a free press. It is no accident that exactly these fundamental prerequisites have been precisely targeted all along.

Democracy, if you wish, is also a religion. It requires a personal faith in the goodness of one’s neighbor. It requires a belief in the soundness of ones own judgment. It requires daring and self-reliance; and an understanding that all people possess such qualities individually.

As I said, the experiment yielded great success. We became the shining city on the hill and nothing we could envision was impossible.

Lucifer couldn’t stand it. He planned and plotted ways to tear our city down brick by brick. He used our own success against us. He imbued us with guilt, doubt and self-loathing. …and then he took power.

The only one totally in the clear in this sordid drama is the agnostic. He couldn't care less either way.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

In Fear of the Druids

No need to worry. As religion is hard-wired into the human condition, it will prevail (no matter what secularists say). Christianity has done a piss-poor job of protecting its flanks. Ditto, Judaism; Hinduism; Buddhism; Jainism; Taoism. All are on the ropes, threatened by Islam and the Left.

Critics of Druidry will mention it and Christianity in the same breath. They are the ones one needs to fear. They would happily deny an important aspect of what it is that makes us human. But that’s only a start. These same people are working hard to deny us liberty as well.

The revival of Druidry is a response to Islam and, at the same time, the non-response of all the other religions put together. Never mind that it’s a more primitive form of worship, a throwback to the days of Kali, the Earth Mother. But at least she had the balls (in one of her infinite incarnations) to fight and win against the demon. And she never polluted her resolve by imagining that the demon was us.

The Unveiling of America

Some say that the only constant re the human condition is pain. Healthy bodies produce chemicals that shield us from pain. Yet the pain is always there. Strip away our organic defenses against it, and pain slips back out to torture us until we find another veil - usually one of a synthetic nature - that once again makes it bearable enough to ignore.

Then there’s hunger. The veil is nutrition. Some of us have woven it into an art form. The leaders of some African countries use food as a weapon, ripping the veil off their enemies - usually women and children, who are always the first in line to suffer the sins of war - subjecting their bodies to the painful pangs of hunger and eventual death.

Then there’s the ever insatiable sex drive. Muslim societies literally wrap their women in veils (burkahs) in an effort to keep (what they regard as) the wayward impulses of their male population at bay.

The daily struggle for security - to guarantee tomorrow’s meal; tomorrow’s distraction - makes use of money as a veil to ease this constant concern.

Finally, there’s our fear of death that produces acrid toxins in our systems. The veil is religion that promises the after-life - at considerable cost, however; tying us to ritual and overt displays cementing group solidarity, the currency of which being the protocol of exclusion, i.e. we abstain from this, we don’t do that, etc,

All such veils, when stripped away result in pain.

Our current administration is seeking to strip away of our veils - the comfort of our traditions - leaving us vulnerable, bitterly exposed and hurting. (Abu Ghraib, you ain’t seen nothing yet.) It’s an exercise in coercion aimed at getting us to submit unconditionally; to abandon our pearls (before swine) of fair-minded opposition, and feed on our energy; our talents; our wisdom to swell their flawed and undeserving elitist egos. They do it because they think they can.

Time will tell if this unveiling of America will serve to turn us into obedient lap dogs, or cause us to unleash our superior numbers against our tormentors.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Moratorium

Man is by nature a deceptive animal. We wear masks which, if we were to let slip, would show us to be the same as everyone else. We are literally obsessed with masks to the point of confusing the mask with what lies beneath. This is good news for politicians who survive by division. They use what is obvious (and, at the same time, not so obvious) to divide us into indefensible camps in order to build a political base for themselves. POTUS is no different.

We are most sensitive about that which we cannot change. The indelible mark of gender and race are primary in our struggle to maintain the appearance of dignity. Culture and religion come in a close second; political orientation comes in third, and so on… By such superficial factors we allow ourselves to be herded into separate rooms, to be used and abused in the privacy of someone’s yawning void. When, in fact, biologically speaking, the differences between us are so minute, they hardly bear mention.

We are all equally human, though this is hardly apparent from the masks we are given and compelled to dance in accordance with. We are taught to hate, act fierce and threatening; or to seduce with words and delicate pirouette; smile; march; kill (always, we are told, for a higher purpose).

Our various protocols are constructed to hide the fact that we are predatory by nature. Our masks mask that aggression is ugly and hides inadequacy - which once again makes us victims to someone’s political ambitions - someone whose own inadequacy compels him to commit ever greater crimes to which we willingly accept the role of accomplice.

There can no longer be any doubt that Obama is not as was advertised: the benign ruler of a complex nation. He would fit much more comfortably into an autocracy (of which, sadly, there are many). But even this eludes him. ‘He is slender and flaccid at the same time; and gives the uncomfortable impression of being invertebrate. In private, he makes use of dialectical materialism to put an end to any discussion.

‘The reasons one can have for hating a man - or loving him - are infinite. Obama reduces the history of the universe to a sordid economic conflict. He affirms that the revolution is predestined to succeed. He dictates opinions with scorn and a certain anger.’*

If Barack Hussein Obama were an American president in the true tradition of American presidents, he would impose a moratorium on mosque building - not oil drilling.
-----------------------------------------------
*Again I am compelled to borrow from Jorge Luis Borges; this time, from “The Shape of the Sword”.

Betrayal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Touchdown Jesus'

This clip reminds of ‘Touchdown Jesus’ struck by lightning and burning to the ground in Monroe, OH this week. Surely the faithful cross themselves while driving past its charred remains in their imagined hearses. Surely no greater portent of garden variety apocalypse could rise to this level of symbolism.

Throughout our history, every major and minor religious cult has had to deal with the issue of apocalypse. It usually involves the return (to earth) of some deity which can then be expected to ‘separate the wheat from the chaff’.

It works on both, a personal level (heaven/hell) as well as on a societal one (the four horsemen). The nation of Iran appears to have melded this concept (the 12th Imam) with global (nuclear) politics - a dangerous mix for all of us.

Proclaiming a specific date for apocalypse does not come without risk. Should the date come and go without anything happening, it devalues the stock of the self-proclaimed prophet instantaneously. In the run-up, however, grand reputations are built. Sixteen Century Nostradamus is still held in high regard today. Even famously stoic JB admits to being mysteriously drawn to apocalyptic visions. In one way or another, we all are. It absolves us from having to face death alone.

The modern version, of course, involves ‘global warming’ and all its derivatives. Its course was entirely predictable. In its ascendancy, fortunes and reputations were made. In its demise, same were dashed. Just this week, it was announced, that not even the high priest’s (Al Gore’s) marriage is likely to survive.

Still, the overall concept will never fade. It’s being pursued in Iran as we speak; even as we ourselves scramble to reframe our own apocalyptic argument along the lines of '(Big) OIL SPILL'. It ultimately boils down to a divergence within what we commonly refer to as ‘religion’ itself. No matter how many atheists proclaim the death of God, men are essentially ‘religious’ animals. They split into two groups: those who have true faith, and those who don’t. The faithless also believe; but they are invariably drawn to the apocalyptic side.

Paradox

Perhaps one of the failings of language is – and there are many – that words are perhaps not sufficient to explain paradox. Let’s just say that ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ are two sides of the very same coin – like heaven and hell; life and death; etc. Again, the illusory difference emerges in where we choose to place our focus.

A holy man wandering the plains of India toward Varanasi on the Ganges, begging for his sustenance along the way, has totally abandoned politics. That is to say, he has ceased to think of himself as a separate and distinct corporal entity. He is nothing; he is also everything - and quite without bias toward any one thing that can be assigned a name. In this way, he has become like a newborn that has not yet learned to distinguish itself from what it sees. It’s interesting that the first thing we do when a baby is born is give it a name.

Alan Watts speaks of man’s internal and external organs in an effort to blur the basic rhetorical divide that gives rise to the political “I”. As the child grows and learns the names of more and more things, so also increases the distancing and fracturing that some vital part of us always feels compelled to call home. Politics is the process by which we count our possessions; by which we seek to validate our right of ownership; by which we work, litigate and fight for what we say belongs to us. The holy man has found a shortcut that bypasses all the strife, all the exertion, all the pain associated with political maneuvering. He has learned that by simply letting go, all things automatically come back to him.

I agree that the “wizened curmudgeons” in the ivory towers of our universities are doing us irreparable harm. This is only because they have become shamelessly political and we were foolish enough to place our emphasis on their degrees and rhetorical skills. But, short of killing them, they will always be with us. It is we who have afforded them undue importance. We were told that one of Obama’s many virtues was that he was a constitutional scholar at University of Chicago Law School. That was enough to disarm many of us. Now, as the rubber is hitting the road we realize how little academic titles actually mean. The University of East Anglia e-mail revelations should only broaden our doubts.

All this stuff, however, is self-correcting. We just happen to be coming down from the apex of a trend that was never sustainable in the first place.

The Blunt Edge of Brutality

Religion, like language, is hard-wired into the human psyche. At their core, all religions are the same. Religion typically splits into two aspects: spiritual and political. The spiritual aspect of religion is straight forward. Its ‘signature’ is tolerance. It deals with questions regarding faith, God and eternity. The political aspect of religion currently draws most of our attention because it has the potential of affecting our immediate circumstances. The same is true for ‘isms’. We can say that man is in essence a religious animal. Or we can say man is in essence political. Both statements accurately reflect a singularity of the human condition.

While it is true that equating man’s spiritual nature with his political nature is paradoxical, the two are nevertheless inseparable. Mankind is most at ease when the political aspect of whatever his primary concern may be (as Alfred North Whitehead suggests) is benign. A wizened curmudgeon professing his belief in Marxism within the confines of an ivory tower suite is no threat to anyone. Man suffers when such concerns become militant as happened during the crusades and is happening now as militant Islam makes its moves.

The constant striving of religion is to reduce all the divergent aspects of life to one. People who may be several happy meals short of enlightenment do not recognize the essential oneness in what they see. They fail to make the connection that ties everything together. There are two ways to force the issue to its resolution. One is persuasion (proselytizing), militancy and violence; the other is tolerance.

Tolerance is the more difficult nut to crack. We have chosen the easy path. It is easier to lop off the heads of non-believers. It’s easier to ban conservatives from speaking at universities. It’s easier to call for jihad. It’s easier to cause havoc and break things, and then pick up the pieces of whatever is left and cobble these into a single atrocity based on the principle of exclusion. It is also easier getting people to submit.

We here in the West have chosen submission. Our enemies attack us and we submit. In order to rationalize our cowardice, we change the language. We blur the line between good and evil. We assume our enemy’s narrative and admit that we are at fault; that it is we who must adjust or even erase ourselves. Our mea culpas – and even our sacrifices - are flawed; it is only ego that speaks. We abandon our principles; our allies. We no longer tolerate ourselves.

This is the mindset of our current administration. It pays no mind to the violence, pain and dislocation that is certain to ensue. For them, all these comprise the necessary gateway through which we all must pass in order to achieve a more perfect union – the Utopia that is envisioned in James Hilton’s Shangri-La, in B.F Skinner’s “Walden Two”, in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc.

In today’s world the concept of tolerance has been all but abandoned. Political strife has taken its place. Unfortunately, just as religion cannot be exorcised from the human psyche, we cannot fight ‘isms’ with ‘isms’ and arrive at a good place. Religion has always been a double-edged sword. We have chosen the blunt edge of brutality.

Articles of Faith

Man-made ‘global warming’ has assumed the status of a state religion for many Americans. Michael Mann is one of its high priests; Al Gore is pope. It fills the need of some to identify some part of themselves with the eternal, which was dashed when TIME magazine announced that God was dead. The new religion comes complete with sins (littering); sacraments; (abortion); proselytizing; dietary rules; salvation and apocalypse. The key here is ‘man-made’. It links devotees directly with the godhead. As such, thousands of strictures are observed and rituals performed in the hope of mitigating the original sin of audacious existence. Non-believers are looked down on as heretics.

The rise of this religion has followed a well trodden path. Our educational system has been used to indoctrinate - much like the madrassahs of Pakistan and Yemen. There is a militant element that stems from the uncertainty arising from the fear of unmasking. For the moment, believers can take comfort in the knowledge that their president is one of them – as it should be. It is they who installed him to the highest office in the land.

Obama too is a disciple. He represents the religion’s political arm. As long as he holds on to political power they are safe. The fact that ‘global warming’ has been exposed as a hoax holds no sway. Many books have been written questioning the authenticity of the historical Jesus. Still, Christians believe and will continue to do so.

‘Global warming’ devotees do not necessarily delude themselves even if it were to come out that every scrap of science supporting it is proven false. They have put aside reason. For them it’s an article of faith; a shorthand for the human condition as they perceive it. They believe in the fallen man for whom there can be no redemption. They believe in the apocalypse in which all is destroyed – unless they can convince (or force) the others (those who were not chosen) to adopt what they deem as right.

The earth is their God. Their leaders are priests. Should any one of these be shamed or in any way diminished by infidels, they will run and sharpen their knives. Should one of their oracles be killed, it will be said he was martyred.

The rank and file is not the problem. They are delusional and weak. It is those who use them to fulfill their own tyrannical ambitions; those who send them out on crusades and suicide missions who must be closely watched.

‘Global warming’ is here to stay. So far, it has defied the separation of church and state. So far, its growth has been spurred without raising suspicion. The danger to the rest of us should have become apparent by the reluctance to let it pass; to give it up; to persist as if the University of East Anglia e-mails had never been made public. Even now, the U.S. government is pursuing cap and trade legislation. Something else is behind it. Too much has been invested in this hoax to stop it dead in its tracks. And yet, it’s only a part of a far greater hoax (that started with Marx), one more attuned to human greed and the lazy desire to control everything.

They Didn't Need God

In my view, the most significant threat to the human race is what it has always been: war. War is nature's way of saying, we have reached an impasse; there is no other way out. War is needed to clear the decks of lies, disinformation and the confusion that is choking off the natural processes, reason, conscience and common sense. Currently, we are poised precariously on that cusp. It could go either way. Science, the last bastion of anything resembling truth, has been co-opted by ideology. Government has fallen to corruption. Truth has become whatever anybody says it is. Policy is based solely on the most recent pronouncement.

Pronouncements are issued daily. Most are at odds with what has come before. Distrust of any source is at record levels. It's interesting to note that major media has refrained from reporting on the 'climate gate' scandal - as if, by not mentioning it, it can be made to go away. Common sense dictates that climate gate was never credible anyway. Neither is Keynesian economics; neither is socialism. All these work together in the building and maintaining the paradox that is (this new eco-based) religion and do not represent a practical (or secular) way foreword.

When functioning is restricted to swirling in the narrow part of the funnel, we find ourselves in what Camus referred to as the 'spitting cell', "a walled-up box in which the prisoner can stand without moving. The solid door that locks him into his cement shell stops a chin level. Hence only his face is visible, and every passing jailer spits copiously on it. The prisoner, wedged into his cell, cannot wipe his face, though he is allowed, it is true, to close his eyes. Well, that, mon cherie, is a human invention. They didn't need God for that little masterpiece."

Curtain of Deceit

Only persons with no stake in this earthly existence can in clear conscience fail to appreciate the difference between a (mental patient) suicide bomber and a Dalai Lama or Pope who are more than willing to offer their good offices in an effort to ease religious tensions around the world.

Whether one wants to believe it or not, there really are those in whose interest it is to actively promote strife. In religious terms they could be classified as demonic or evil. Some sell arms; some direct armies; others are in the throes of some version of a death wish. Many, if not most, carry U.S passports.

They all profit hugely from war (or the threat of it), funded by Marxist sycophants whose manifesto clearly advocates and glorifies constant revolution and bloodletting with the same zeal with which some of us are asked to advocate and glorify the sacrament of abortion.

The end of armed struggle would put them all out of business. While politicians sit on their fences, counting their campaign donations, the hate merchants’ influence, regrettably, grows stronger every day. Already, it has acquired sufficient clout to overrule any chance for peace that a clear majority, living in any one of the various global trouble spots, might dare to hope for.

The day will come when Obama’s name will be synonymous with Mao, Pot, Stalin, Castro or anyone else on the left side of the ledger you care to mention, for the pendulum is bound to swing back. On that day Tibet will be free, as will the good people of N. Korea and Iran… for tyranny can never be more than transient.

Marxism and religion are diametrically opposed as religion consistently and paradoxically imbues the weakest link – children and the aged – with (divine) power, while shunning coercion that benefits only the few who manage to hide the stain of corruption behind a curtain of deceit.