Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Islamo-phobic? Think Again
Part 1: Cultural Lessons from Girls of Riyadh and Kuwait
Recently I read a fascinating book unlike any other. Translated into English from Arabic, the Girls of Riyadh compiles a series of emails written by a young Saudi Arabian woman who, at the time of the book’s release, was in Chicago pursuing an endodontic degree.
At the same time the author’s portrayals of her peers are culturally predictable, they are likewise disarmingly surprising. Author Rajaa Alsanea cleverly applies her keen sense of humor and incredibly insightful observations to delightful tales of girlish antics. Within the context of Riyadh’s societal and cultural mores, each girl’s story captures the imagination of readers from the East—and the curiosity of those from the West.
A Worldview “Better Felt Than Telt”
As a woman, I am intrigued by accounts of these girls’ romances, coupled with their remarkable achievements in academia, not to mention their notable career aspirations. I am further moved that sincerely held religious convictions guide every aspect of their lives. Moreover, in reading these published emails, I’m reminded of my own youth.
You see, from 1971-1973, I taught at the American School of Kuwait and, in the summer of 1974, I tutored the Kuwaiti Head of Parliament’s daughter in preparation for her freshman year of college. This young lady was on her way to the United States, and my job was to school her in colloquialisms and to increase her English vocabulary. To that end, I was invited into her life at home, at work, and at play.
Coupled with Alanea’s portrayals of girls of Riyadh, my experiences with girls of Kuwait demonstrate how a defined worldview shapes popular culture, education, economies, and geo-political policies enforced by leaders. For this reason, those already invested in a worldview do well to reflect upon that view’s reach and impact, particularly how it relates to competing or clashing ones. Unfortunately, too many among us choose instead to remain ignorant.
Failing to grasp worldviews vying for supremacy in our changing times, the un- or mis- informed fall prey to winds of change that are certain to set their vessels adrift. Effective dialogue between East and West depends on knowledge. It’s for this reason that I share simple, but crucial lessons I’ve learned from rare glimpses into the ordinary lives of affluent young women of Islam. To these, I add accounts of extraordinary experiences of ordinary Americans when Islamic philosophy and methodology are imposed on them against their will.
Not the Western Way
Set apart by her uncommon background, Alsanea invites readers (both “ladies and gentlemen”) to join her as if she were a tour guide to a new world, one “closer than what you’d imagine.” Her expressed task is to provide the inside scoop of conservative Islamic society as experienced by privileged young Saudi women. Escapades of the clique of girl friends she introduces demonstrate how some Muslim women are beginning to carve out their own way—a reformed way, yes, but not the Western way. Alsanea makes this point very clear.
Keep in mind that “reform” in the Muslim world means something entirely different to Muslims from what it means to infidels—i.e., non-Muslims. To Asanea and her peers, liberated womanhood rests somewhere in between contemporary Western society and sharia.
I repeat: It’s not the Western way. Even girl friend Michelle, whose maternal family is as American as apple pie, returns “home” to Saudi Arabia from her “visits” stateside. The faith of her father beckons Michelle back to her Islamic society largely veiled from Western view.
The Girls of Kuwait
Also among the affluent upper class, my Kuwaiti student was confident, outspoken, and curious. Myself only twenty-five years of age, we weren’t much distanced in age. Though I was her teacher, she came across, in many ways, as “older” (certainly more aggressive) than I.
Budding Women of Islam
Reading Girls of Riyadh refreshed my recollections of this young lady’s group of Kuwaiti girl friends, whose everyday lives were akin to those of the Riyadh girls. Though decades distanced the Saudi clique from their Kuwaiti counterparts, their experiences as Muslim women were more similar than not.
First hand observation of contemporary desert life, framed by seventh-century Arabian culture, intrigued me in the 1970s, and all the more today. Whether in Riyadh or Kuwait City, a Muslim woman’s lot in life is defined by nonnegotiable religious restrictions. While upper class Gulf women study hard and subsequently receive advanced education degrees, they remain under the thumb of a decidedly patriarchal system.
Marrying well (and successfully) tops the list of “to dos” for a dutiful Muslim woman. Muhammad referred to women as man “toys”; and hell, he warned, is replete with ungrateful women who had failed to please their husbands. If that’s not enough, a man’s testimony in courts of law carries the weight of two women’s testimonies, and women in strict Islamic states may not drive or vote.
Separation of the Sexes
Toward the close of my summer employment in 1974, I was invited to a traditional graduation party for my Kuwaiti student and, in a very unique way, gained access to a privileged world unknown to most.
A Westerner unencumbered by limitations, as these, I eyed with great curiosity the scores of young Kuwaiti women who attended that graduation celebration to which I was invited decades earlier. Once out of the public eye, these lovely girls shed their abiyas to reveal an astonishing array of the latest European designer fashions.
Musicians were the only men allowed, but judging from the flashy, form-enhancing attire of these voluptuous young women, one would think their sole charge was to attract and hook a man! Suffice it to say, once a girl is earmarked for marriage, she is further immersed in training to perfect “the art of seduction,” which, I learned, is already very well developed by her teens.
Each Kuwaiti girl in attendance was lavished in jewels (no dime store imitations!). Sculpted hair and exotic make-up mirrored—but preceded and exceeded in sophistication—the Designing Women style of America’s 1980s. What author Rajaa Alsanea characterized as her “signature, shameless, crimson-red lipstick” painted the lips and fashionably formed fingernails of my student and her peers.
Competition and Jealousy
As the evening progressed, each guest was compelled, one after another, to take the dance floor (what appeared to be a long hallway down the center of the room) and “strut her stuff,” as if reenacting an old fashioned “cake walk.” Among onlookers were moms, known humorously as “capital funds and mothers of sons,” who checked out each beauty for suitability as a potential bride for their sons.
Assuming the posture of Paris runway models, guests took their turns while huddled onlookers chattered among themselves. To the best of her ability, each girl averted “the evil eye” which, if directed her way, bestowed bad luck (or so she thought). Even so, each dancer’s bloodline, family wealth, and status were as freely denigrated as her physical appearance. What the girls refer to as “Satan’s evil whisperings” could be downright brutal—e.g., She’s too fat, has a big nose and/or an ugly dress. So-and-so’s prettier, etc.
As with the Saudi girls, so it was with girls of Kuwait. Though highly competitive and openly critical of one another, they clearly enjoyed lifelong friendships marked by genuine affection. Shill trills (similar to wild West warrior whoops) were interjected periodically as if to say, “Way to go, girl friend!” These were interspersed with “pep” chants—i.e., “a thousand blessings and peace be upon you, beloved of Allah, Muhammad!”
When it came my turn to take center stage at this graduation shindig, I stood to my feet, headed down the runway, and immediately felt the sting of buzzing gossip. Once my gig was up, the girls praised my “beauty and grace.” Of course, I recognized that these young women had surely noticed my dress wasn’t a designer original, nor were my “jewels” museum quality. Admittedly, my dance moves were iffy; nevertheless, to my credit, I competed well in the “big hair” department. It was, after all, the seventies!
Superstition and Fate
No big surprises here: Girlish competition and jealousies are typical of all teens, especially among the affluent. However, it puzzles me that, no matter how sophisticated and educated they are, girls of Riyadh and Kuwait succumb to superstition. Ouija boards answer their questions, and personal fortunes are sought out through “readings” of coffee grounds and tealeaves. Even when referenced nonchalantly, as if only in fun, signs of the Zodiac weigh heavily in predicting success of soon-to-be-arranged marriages.
“Fate” likewise drives the Eastern mind. While a resident of Kuwait, I observed that some Muslims seem to think as follows: “If I live, I live; if I die, I die. Whether or not I conduct my affairs rationally, my plight in life rests solely in the hands of Fate. So be it.”
Predictably, the girls of Riyadh echoed this line of reasoning. One’s plight in love rests solely in the hands of Fate. So be it. At her wedding party in Riyadh, for example, the bride’s friends moaned, “The Prophet Muhammad used to send up prayers for the unlovely ones; and now the ugly ones seem to be in demand these days, and not us.” That’s just the way it is. Bummers!
East is East, and West is West
Perhaps more entertaining than anthropomorphically relevant, our girls of Riyadh nonetheless have much to teach us about Islamic culture and faith. I accept that today’s ever expanding “social media” shows Eastern kids to have much in common with their Western counterparts in growing up, schooling, relating, loving, and finding their way in our increasingly complex world.
Rightly so, modern Saudi women perceive themselves as catalysts for reform; but they do not look to the West for definition. Once again, I emphasize that the “new way” they’re pioneering is not the Western way. For us to imagine otherwise is unfounded.
Privileged Saudi women appear far more interested in becoming excellent doctors, dentists, and journalists than they are in “wiping Israel off the face of the Earth.” I’m guessing that, once they come of age, these ladies would rather “make love, not war.” But make no mistake. Hollywood may tickle the fancies of ‘tweens, teens, and twenty-somethings but, in the end, Islamic culture will not be overturned. Nor will the mission of Islam be thwarted. Not by these lassies anyway.
The good news is that a large majority of Muslims, despite gender, distance themselves from radicalism. Problem is, if only a tiny percentage of a huge population endorses Wahhabi extremism, the threat posed is monumental and mustn’t be airbrushed in the name of “Let’s all just get along.” 7
More to follow, Part 2.
Rajaa Alsanea. Girls of Riyadh. (London: Penguin Books, 2005).
Sharia is the restrictive code of laws and rules that govern the life and behavior of Muslims. Based on the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad, sharia references “a path or way to a water hole in the desert.”
David Wallechinsky. “The10 Worst Living Dictators.” Parade Magazine (February 16, 2003): 4.
Abiyas are black “tents” (modesty coverings) worn by Gulf State Muslim women while in public. Abiyas do not replace, but rather overlay “street clothes” (deemed appropriate only in privacy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism.
Quran (2:191-193).
7 Without doubt Islam is the largest non-Christian religion in the world, and some fifteen percent of all of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims sympathize with extremism. Spokesperson for the military wing of Hamas in Gaza admits: “Our people love death.” Furthermore, he adds, “Our goal is to die for the sake of God; and if we live, we want to humiliate Jews and trample on their necks.”
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Bamboozled by Buddlam
Today’s Tactical Pursuit of Religious Commonality
Part 3: Bamboozled by Buddlam
Generally speaking, the study of cultural geography is a good thing. Ongoing dialogue allows one to learn more about others’ beliefs and cultures and hopefully fosters goodwill among world citizens.1 Unfortunately today’s “diversity principle” is more about syncretism than it’s about education.
Beyond research, we’re called “to change our whole way of thinking” because—in the words of Millard Fuller (founder of Habitat for Humanity)—“the New Order of the Spirit is confronting and challenging us.”
An emerging “new consciousness” springs from a growing awareness among Westerners of the inherent wisdom emanating from the East. Cosmic humanist Lucile Green contends that Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Shinto may well differ, but together they portray the world as “multidimensional.” Learning through them, she continues, serves “to build the foundations of a new world order”—specifically, one distinguished by religious pluralism.2
Fact is postmodernists herald most any brand of spirituality that, by politically correct standards, isn’t unduly divisive.3 For the sake of building upon “common ground”—this, in an effort to reconcile creeds that logically clash—compliant religionists (whether Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and/or Muslim) forfeit (or feign to forfeit) traditional core doctrines of their respective religions. 4
Buddlam’s “Path Proper”: Straight but not Narrow
Syncretistic Buddlam poses no special problem to Buddhists who historically endorse “many paths.” To the contrary, one expects Islamic fundamentalists to be more rigid. However, “pacifists” from among them readily embrace Buddhism, but for self-serving reasons. By feigning friendship with one’s nemesis, or by recasting beliefs as being somehow “similar,” these hope to gain tactical advantage. Once Islam’s taproot is sufficiently grounded, the faithful may drop any temporal façade of conciliation to summons the dar-al-kuffer to heed the call of Allah to Islam. 5
The “straight path” to which Muslims must adhere features five pillars—the first of which is Islamic creed: “There is no God But Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet.” The next is prayer; then, charity, the observance of Ramadan by fasting, and finally an once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca. 6
Buddha’s Four Noble Truths begin with suffering, caused by desire and overcome by an eightfold path of right knowledge, effort, aspiration, speech, behavior, livelihood, mindfulness, and absorption. By following eight steps of the “path proper,” Buddhists hope to curtail suffering by overcoming desire. The destination for this “path” bears not the slightest resemblance to Islam’s endpoint. 7
Nevertheless, in the name of religious harmony, Buddlam advances and recasts a smorgasbord of mismatched creeds and practices until incongruent belief systems of Buddhism and Islam appear to be analogous when they’re not. In reality, the resulting “synchrony” is as unrecognizable and highly unlikely as a mythological half-man, half-horse (a cryptid).8
Creed: “No God …”
Originally recognized as Al-Lat, Allah was known to Arabs in Saudi Arabia even before Islam existed. The “moon god” was one of 360 gods worshipped by the tribes in Mecca. Ironically, strictly monotheistic Islamic creed recognizes no god but Allah. In stark contrast, Buddhism recognizes no god at all. Any pretense of reconciling these two anomalies (“no God but Allah” with “no god at all”) is purely semantic.9
Prayer: Prostration/Buddhist Meditation
Even as Muslims wash, prostrate themselves facing Mecca, and then pray five times daily, Buddhists similarly prostrate themselves three times before prayer. However, supposed similarities end when Buddlam presumes to equate Buddhist meditation with Islamist instruction from holy texts. Whereas the latter involves focused cognition, the former requires an altered state of consciousness. Furthermore, Buddlamists liken devotional practices that are found in many of the Sufi traditions—e.g., Whirling Dervishes—to those specifically associated with Westerners who frequent Mahayana Buddhist centers—namely, chanting, singing, and “vajra-dances.”10
Almsgiving: Almsgiving/Far-reaching Perfections
Both Islam and Buddhism hold individuals responsible for their actions; both adhere to strict ethics; and both practice general cleanliness and charity. As almsgiving is a pillar of Islam, all forms of Buddhism teach generosity, one of the so-called “far-reaching perfections.” While almsgiving for Muslims is motivated by compulsion, it’s pragmatism that goads Buddhists to generosity. After all, Buddhists accept that no god or gods can be counted on, not even the Buddha himself; and of ninety-nine titles attributed to Allah, “love” is not one of them.11
Fasting (Ramadan): Halal/Vegetarianism
Though dietary restraints attend Judeo-Christian tradition, it’s not so much what goes into the body that matters most; rather, it’s what comes out of the heart and mouth.12 Yet again, pragmatism spurs Buddhists to vegetarianism; and, under legal compulsion, Muslims fast until sunset throughout the month of Ramadan. Additionally, while offering a prayer for animals to be reborn in heaven, Islamists follow the halal method of slaughter. Both camps refuse pork and alcohol.
Pilgrimage: Saudi Hajj/India Pilgrimage
Once in their lives, many followers of the various Buddhist traditions aspire to make a pilgrimage to the holy site in India where Buddha attained enlightenment; and Muslims make their hajj journey to Mecca. Buddhist devotees circumambulate and prostrate themselves before a prime Buddhist temple with a stone cube draped in cloth at its center. This, of course, is reminiscent of Islamists encircling the Kaaba stone in Mecca. The point being, though outward acts of piety—i.e., prayer, almsgiving, dietary restrictions, pilgrimage—may indeed suggest similitude, fundamental end goals of extinction (Buddhism) and dominance (Islam) do not.13
• Finally: Trivializing Essential Creed as Superfluous—e.g., Nature of God, Afterlife
The Great “No”/ Detached Nothingness
In Arabic, “lah” means "no," so it’s a negation. Buddlam toys with the word “Allah” by suggesting that the “-lah” at its end designates nothingness. Chanters who decrease one syllable of the Muslim mantra (Allahu akbar) one “lah” at a time ostensibly render Allah "the ‘Great No’"— i.e., the unimaginable pure breath of God.14
Keep in mind that Allah literally means “the God”—to Islamists, the only God. By tampering with the word itself, Buddlamists obliterate the very backbone of an in-your-face religion that simply won’t be refused. For the Islamist, the semblance of religious harmony is but temporal. Once the battle cry of triumph is raised, and the ummah takes form, Islamists will entertain syncretistic nonsense no longer.
Muslim Paradise/Buddhist Nirvana
Buddlamists target and, then, dismiss incompatible beliefs relating to the “afterlife” as if they were inconsequential when, fundamentally, they are not. An ultimate destination theology is no side issue. Indeed, afterlife theology dates back to ancient Egypt, and all major religions speak to it.
Whereas Muslim Paradise is portrayed as a garden full of physical pleasures, succulent fruit, and refreshing rivers (and hell is forever), Buddhists instead anticipate a state of detachment or nothingness (nirvana). Likened to one’s escaping a burning building, Buddhist samsara (“hell”) is limited.
Unless martyred, there’s no assurance a Muslim will merit reward for his good deeds, even when the good- outweigh bad- deeds committed. Arbitrary by nature, Allah makes final decisions as he pleases. In contrast, “a black substance that results from wrongdoing” (karma) is said to determine a Buddhist’s providence; and the highest (therefore, a religiously rudimentary) principle in Buddhism is known as “voidness,” said to unite everything beyond all names and concepts.15
As if to make a point with doctrinal spin, Buddlam equates the Buddhist principle of detachment (voidness) with the practice of circumcision among some Islamists. Pairing afterlife doctrines of Buddhists and Islamists this way serves to trivialize an essential creed. Fact is, no matter how it’s portrayed, negotiating one’s afterlife is no small matter.
In his right mind, no would-be Muslim martyr would even consider embracing extinction (voidness) in exchange for promise of seventy-two virgins in Paradise! (What man would?) Be sure, minus the spin, core beliefs of Islamic Paradise and Buddhist nirvana are conceptually different as night and day.16
Final Word
Whether presented as Chrislam, Buddlam, or Hindlam, religious syncretism guarantees global harmony and, in time, will deliver a worldwide coalition that ostensibly shares “one mind.”17
Though open to any non-monotheistic belief system, the complicit show ever-increasing rancor toward Bible believers who firmly “set their faces as flint” without regard for political correctness.18 In the new order of a new age, nonconformists as these are deemed “divisive” and even dispensable.19
Not so in the Kingdom of Christ. They’re lauded as overcomers.20 But not by human might or power.21 It’s by the grace of God that these manage to escape the seduction of religious syncretism.
1. First developed in the late 1950s, the Delphi Technique is a psychological process whereby a predetermined outcome is decided; and all discussions and decisions are made to lead a group to that consensus. Collaborative learning, conflict resolution, and Hegelian Dialectics are analogous terms.
2. Lucile Green. Journey to a Governed World. (Berkeley: the Uniquest Foundation, 1992): 34. Note: In Latin “religion” means “to bind”—that is, to a belief or philosophy that might or might not involve worship of a god or gods. Powerful incentives of guilt and/or fear beckon the gullible to one-world dogma, as expounded in globalism’s bible, the United Nations Charter. Not the Ten Commandments. The UNESCO Declaration of Tolerance (1995) essentially elevates rejection of moral/religious absolutism to the status of legal requirement in one-world politics.
3. Called anti-logic by Plato, deconstructionism is the argument-counter argument ploy of fifth-century sophists who applied spurious reasoning solely to win arguments, never to establish truth. Postmodernism, or high theory, is modern relativism applied to language. In brief, it’s cerebral political correctness.
4. With escalating fervency, a clarion call for religious tolerance trailed synchronized terrorist attacks on America (11 September 2001). Thereafter, presenting Jesus as the only way met with unprecedented disapproval. Political correctness mandated instead an all-inclusive, milk-toast spirituality that everyone could affirm. Goaded by the world’s political and religious leaders, peace loving Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. linked arms as “brothers.” Living peacefully with all men may indeed be biblical, but sharing in the hamartia (Greek, “missing the mark with grave consequences following”) of syncretism is not. Better for God’s people to “come out” than to linger at the wide gate, or saunter down the broad way to destruction (Romans 12:18; Revelation 18:3-5a; Matthew 7:13).
5. One of Islam’s most distinguished theologians Al-Ghazzali (1058-1111) once wrote: “Know that a lie is not wrong in itself. If a lie is the only way of obtaining a good result, it is permissible. We must lie when truth leads to unpleasant results.”?
6. Huston Smith. “Buddhism” and “Islam.” The Religions of Man. (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1965): 90-159; 217-253.
7. Debra Rae. “Buddhism.” ABCs of Globalism: A Vigilant Christian’s Glossary. (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1999): 82-84.
8. http://www.answers.com/topic/cryptid#ixzz1SC22wxrV.
9. "Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities." Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406.
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_whirling.
11. William Wagner. “The Quiet Revolution.” How Islam Plans to Change the World. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004): 39-42.
12. Matthew 15:11.
13. Mahathera, Nyanatiloka. Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, 4th ed. (Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, ISBN 9552400198). Available online. Retrieved July 16, 2011.
14. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/islam/general/common_features_islam_buddhism.html.
15. http://.falundafa.org/book/eng/dymf_5.htm.
16. Despite profound doctrinal variations, major religions share one great teaching—namely, human beings are immortal, and their spirits come from a divine world and eventually will return there. Since even the earliest spiritual expressions, this stands as the singular great hope for believers. See: Keith L. Brooks. The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error (1 John 4:6). (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969): 1-2.
17. Revelation 17:13.
18. In Isaiah 50:7 to set one’s face as flint (a hard rock) denotes resolution not to shrink from suffering or contempt.
19. John 16:2.
20. Revelation 3:21.
21. Zechariah 4:6.
Part 3: Bamboozled by Buddlam
Generally speaking, the study of cultural geography is a good thing. Ongoing dialogue allows one to learn more about others’ beliefs and cultures and hopefully fosters goodwill among world citizens.1 Unfortunately today’s “diversity principle” is more about syncretism than it’s about education.
Beyond research, we’re called “to change our whole way of thinking” because—in the words of Millard Fuller (founder of Habitat for Humanity)—“the New Order of the Spirit is confronting and challenging us.”
An emerging “new consciousness” springs from a growing awareness among Westerners of the inherent wisdom emanating from the East. Cosmic humanist Lucile Green contends that Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Shinto may well differ, but together they portray the world as “multidimensional.” Learning through them, she continues, serves “to build the foundations of a new world order”—specifically, one distinguished by religious pluralism.2
Fact is postmodernists herald most any brand of spirituality that, by politically correct standards, isn’t unduly divisive.3 For the sake of building upon “common ground”—this, in an effort to reconcile creeds that logically clash—compliant religionists (whether Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and/or Muslim) forfeit (or feign to forfeit) traditional core doctrines of their respective religions. 4
Buddlam’s “Path Proper”: Straight but not Narrow
Syncretistic Buddlam poses no special problem to Buddhists who historically endorse “many paths.” To the contrary, one expects Islamic fundamentalists to be more rigid. However, “pacifists” from among them readily embrace Buddhism, but for self-serving reasons. By feigning friendship with one’s nemesis, or by recasting beliefs as being somehow “similar,” these hope to gain tactical advantage. Once Islam’s taproot is sufficiently grounded, the faithful may drop any temporal façade of conciliation to summons the dar-al-kuffer to heed the call of Allah to Islam. 5
The “straight path” to which Muslims must adhere features five pillars—the first of which is Islamic creed: “There is no God But Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet.” The next is prayer; then, charity, the observance of Ramadan by fasting, and finally an once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca. 6
Buddha’s Four Noble Truths begin with suffering, caused by desire and overcome by an eightfold path of right knowledge, effort, aspiration, speech, behavior, livelihood, mindfulness, and absorption. By following eight steps of the “path proper,” Buddhists hope to curtail suffering by overcoming desire. The destination for this “path” bears not the slightest resemblance to Islam’s endpoint. 7
Nevertheless, in the name of religious harmony, Buddlam advances and recasts a smorgasbord of mismatched creeds and practices until incongruent belief systems of Buddhism and Islam appear to be analogous when they’re not. In reality, the resulting “synchrony” is as unrecognizable and highly unlikely as a mythological half-man, half-horse (a cryptid).8
Creed: “No God …”
Originally recognized as Al-Lat, Allah was known to Arabs in Saudi Arabia even before Islam existed. The “moon god” was one of 360 gods worshipped by the tribes in Mecca. Ironically, strictly monotheistic Islamic creed recognizes no god but Allah. In stark contrast, Buddhism recognizes no god at all. Any pretense of reconciling these two anomalies (“no God but Allah” with “no god at all”) is purely semantic.9
Prayer: Prostration/Buddhist Meditation
Even as Muslims wash, prostrate themselves facing Mecca, and then pray five times daily, Buddhists similarly prostrate themselves three times before prayer. However, supposed similarities end when Buddlam presumes to equate Buddhist meditation with Islamist instruction from holy texts. Whereas the latter involves focused cognition, the former requires an altered state of consciousness. Furthermore, Buddlamists liken devotional practices that are found in many of the Sufi traditions—e.g., Whirling Dervishes—to those specifically associated with Westerners who frequent Mahayana Buddhist centers—namely, chanting, singing, and “vajra-dances.”10
Almsgiving: Almsgiving/Far-reaching Perfections
Both Islam and Buddhism hold individuals responsible for their actions; both adhere to strict ethics; and both practice general cleanliness and charity. As almsgiving is a pillar of Islam, all forms of Buddhism teach generosity, one of the so-called “far-reaching perfections.” While almsgiving for Muslims is motivated by compulsion, it’s pragmatism that goads Buddhists to generosity. After all, Buddhists accept that no god or gods can be counted on, not even the Buddha himself; and of ninety-nine titles attributed to Allah, “love” is not one of them.11
Fasting (Ramadan): Halal/Vegetarianism
Though dietary restraints attend Judeo-Christian tradition, it’s not so much what goes into the body that matters most; rather, it’s what comes out of the heart and mouth.12 Yet again, pragmatism spurs Buddhists to vegetarianism; and, under legal compulsion, Muslims fast until sunset throughout the month of Ramadan. Additionally, while offering a prayer for animals to be reborn in heaven, Islamists follow the halal method of slaughter. Both camps refuse pork and alcohol.
Pilgrimage: Saudi Hajj/India Pilgrimage
Once in their lives, many followers of the various Buddhist traditions aspire to make a pilgrimage to the holy site in India where Buddha attained enlightenment; and Muslims make their hajj journey to Mecca. Buddhist devotees circumambulate and prostrate themselves before a prime Buddhist temple with a stone cube draped in cloth at its center. This, of course, is reminiscent of Islamists encircling the Kaaba stone in Mecca. The point being, though outward acts of piety—i.e., prayer, almsgiving, dietary restrictions, pilgrimage—may indeed suggest similitude, fundamental end goals of extinction (Buddhism) and dominance (Islam) do not.13
• Finally: Trivializing Essential Creed as Superfluous—e.g., Nature of God, Afterlife
The Great “No”/ Detached Nothingness
In Arabic, “lah” means "no," so it’s a negation. Buddlam toys with the word “Allah” by suggesting that the “-lah” at its end designates nothingness. Chanters who decrease one syllable of the Muslim mantra (Allahu akbar) one “lah” at a time ostensibly render Allah "the ‘Great No’"— i.e., the unimaginable pure breath of God.14
Keep in mind that Allah literally means “the God”—to Islamists, the only God. By tampering with the word itself, Buddlamists obliterate the very backbone of an in-your-face religion that simply won’t be refused. For the Islamist, the semblance of religious harmony is but temporal. Once the battle cry of triumph is raised, and the ummah takes form, Islamists will entertain syncretistic nonsense no longer.
Muslim Paradise/Buddhist Nirvana
Buddlamists target and, then, dismiss incompatible beliefs relating to the “afterlife” as if they were inconsequential when, fundamentally, they are not. An ultimate destination theology is no side issue. Indeed, afterlife theology dates back to ancient Egypt, and all major religions speak to it.
Whereas Muslim Paradise is portrayed as a garden full of physical pleasures, succulent fruit, and refreshing rivers (and hell is forever), Buddhists instead anticipate a state of detachment or nothingness (nirvana). Likened to one’s escaping a burning building, Buddhist samsara (“hell”) is limited.
Unless martyred, there’s no assurance a Muslim will merit reward for his good deeds, even when the good- outweigh bad- deeds committed. Arbitrary by nature, Allah makes final decisions as he pleases. In contrast, “a black substance that results from wrongdoing” (karma) is said to determine a Buddhist’s providence; and the highest (therefore, a religiously rudimentary) principle in Buddhism is known as “voidness,” said to unite everything beyond all names and concepts.15
As if to make a point with doctrinal spin, Buddlam equates the Buddhist principle of detachment (voidness) with the practice of circumcision among some Islamists. Pairing afterlife doctrines of Buddhists and Islamists this way serves to trivialize an essential creed. Fact is, no matter how it’s portrayed, negotiating one’s afterlife is no small matter.
In his right mind, no would-be Muslim martyr would even consider embracing extinction (voidness) in exchange for promise of seventy-two virgins in Paradise! (What man would?) Be sure, minus the spin, core beliefs of Islamic Paradise and Buddhist nirvana are conceptually different as night and day.16
Final Word
Whether presented as Chrislam, Buddlam, or Hindlam, religious syncretism guarantees global harmony and, in time, will deliver a worldwide coalition that ostensibly shares “one mind.”17
Though open to any non-monotheistic belief system, the complicit show ever-increasing rancor toward Bible believers who firmly “set their faces as flint” without regard for political correctness.18 In the new order of a new age, nonconformists as these are deemed “divisive” and even dispensable.19
Not so in the Kingdom of Christ. They’re lauded as overcomers.20 But not by human might or power.21 It’s by the grace of God that these manage to escape the seduction of religious syncretism.
1. First developed in the late 1950s, the Delphi Technique is a psychological process whereby a predetermined outcome is decided; and all discussions and decisions are made to lead a group to that consensus. Collaborative learning, conflict resolution, and Hegelian Dialectics are analogous terms.
2. Lucile Green. Journey to a Governed World. (Berkeley: the Uniquest Foundation, 1992): 34. Note: In Latin “religion” means “to bind”—that is, to a belief or philosophy that might or might not involve worship of a god or gods. Powerful incentives of guilt and/or fear beckon the gullible to one-world dogma, as expounded in globalism’s bible, the United Nations Charter. Not the Ten Commandments. The UNESCO Declaration of Tolerance (1995) essentially elevates rejection of moral/religious absolutism to the status of legal requirement in one-world politics.
3. Called anti-logic by Plato, deconstructionism is the argument-counter argument ploy of fifth-century sophists who applied spurious reasoning solely to win arguments, never to establish truth. Postmodernism, or high theory, is modern relativism applied to language. In brief, it’s cerebral political correctness.
4. With escalating fervency, a clarion call for religious tolerance trailed synchronized terrorist attacks on America (11 September 2001). Thereafter, presenting Jesus as the only way met with unprecedented disapproval. Political correctness mandated instead an all-inclusive, milk-toast spirituality that everyone could affirm. Goaded by the world’s political and religious leaders, peace loving Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. linked arms as “brothers.” Living peacefully with all men may indeed be biblical, but sharing in the hamartia (Greek, “missing the mark with grave consequences following”) of syncretism is not. Better for God’s people to “come out” than to linger at the wide gate, or saunter down the broad way to destruction (Romans 12:18; Revelation 18:3-5a; Matthew 7:13).
5. One of Islam’s most distinguished theologians Al-Ghazzali (1058-1111) once wrote: “Know that a lie is not wrong in itself. If a lie is the only way of obtaining a good result, it is permissible. We must lie when truth leads to unpleasant results.”?
6. Huston Smith. “Buddhism” and “Islam.” The Religions of Man. (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1965): 90-159; 217-253.
7. Debra Rae. “Buddhism.” ABCs of Globalism: A Vigilant Christian’s Glossary. (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1999): 82-84.
8. http://www.answers.com/topic/cryptid#ixzz1SC22wxrV.
9. "Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities." Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406.
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_whirling.
11. William Wagner. “The Quiet Revolution.” How Islam Plans to Change the World. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004): 39-42.
12. Matthew 15:11.
13. Mahathera, Nyanatiloka. Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, 4th ed. (Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, ISBN 9552400198). Available online. Retrieved July 16, 2011.
14. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/islam/general/common_features_islam_buddhism.html.
15. http://.falundafa.org/book/eng/dymf_5.htm.
16. Despite profound doctrinal variations, major religions share one great teaching—namely, human beings are immortal, and their spirits come from a divine world and eventually will return there. Since even the earliest spiritual expressions, this stands as the singular great hope for believers. See: Keith L. Brooks. The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error (1 John 4:6). (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969): 1-2.
17. Revelation 17:13.
18. In Isaiah 50:7 to set one’s face as flint (a hard rock) denotes resolution not to shrink from suffering or contempt.
19. John 16:2.
20. Revelation 3:21.
21. Zechariah 4:6.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Baited by Buddlam
Today’s Tactical Pursuit of Religious Commonality
Part 2: Baited by Buddlam
These days, while describing themselves as “spiritual,” increasing numbers of Westerners embrace “no religious affiliation.” Though creed, commandments, and ritual are falling by the wayside, the impulse to link with some “higher being” appears to be on the rise.
East is East, and West is East
To postmodernists, whatever brand of spirituality floats one boat is fine—just as long as the boat’s not rocked. In the West, religious inclusionism appeals especially to nominal Christians. For mainline church folk committed to the Doctrine of Tolerance, “Chrislam” fills the bill nicely. After all, “ecumenical reconciliation” beats the alternatives—i.e., jihad and War on Terror.1
On the other hand, pursuers of religious commonality in the East favor what’s called “Buddlam,” doctrinal mix of Buddhism with Islam.2 Syncretistic Buddlam poses no problem to Buddhists who historically endorse “many paths.” Nor even to Islamists who tactically embrace inclusionism all the while coddling their own desired end to the contrary.
For the sake of building upon “common ground”—this, in an effort to reconcile creeds that logically clash—willing inclusionists take one for the team, as it were, by forfeiting (or feigning to forfeit) traditional core doctrines of their respective religions.
Syncretism on the Sly
Contrary to popular belief, not all orthodox Muslims are offensive activists who refuse to assimilate. Some are defensive pacifists for whom assimilation (or presence) serves an underlying objective to preserve the house of Islam (dar-al-Islam) and foster its growth.
In short, the destiny mission for all orthodox Islamists is complete world dominance. It’s believed that, in time, the community of non-Muslims (dar-al-kuffer) will comply, whether by conversion or coercion; and one caliph armed with sharia will rule over a global community of all those who affirm Islam (ummah).3
With a single eye for this Islamic Grand Design, Muslim proponents of Buddlam target and, then, strategically downplay religious differences—this, in the bogus name of “religious harmony.” Islamists are okay with deception for self-interest.4
Put another way, Islamic precedence accepts that the end (ummah) justifies the means—e.g., identifying with other faiths, if only superficially, as a semblance of solidarity. Other tactics include recasting mismatched beliefs as “similar,” or simply trivializing them as superfluous when, in fact, they are not.
Once Islam’s taproot is well established, the faithful are free to drop the façade and, then, summons the conquered to heed the call of Allah to Islam (da’wah) whereupon shouts of Allahu akbar, meaning “Allah is Greater,” will silence the defunct, but currently useful “many-paths-to-God” mantra. 5
• First: Outward Identification in a Show of Solidarity
Throughout the hajj, Muslim men are required to dress alike in order to represent equality of all Muslims, whether rich or poor. Regardless of one’s sect or country of origin, male pilgrims don sandals and drape themselves in two sheets of white cloth to remind them of simplicity, humility, and self-purification.
Not unlike Muslim Arabs whom the early 11th century Sanskrit Texts depict as “white-clad” invaders, Buddhists with shaved heads also wear special robes. Buddlamists applaud this outward identification, if only by wardrobe, as apparent indication of solidarity, if not sameness.6
With this in mind, I recall a popular comedy routine from decades past in which the Smothers Brothers sang a memorable, tongue-in-cheek ditty. Lyrics expounded on wearing the collar, hat, raincoat, and shoes of a sailor (anthropologist, or refrigerator repairman—whatever) so that some day they’d be sailors, too—“the same as their old man.”
Though Buddhist, the Dalai Lama visits local mosques and dons Islamic garments—but for the sake of conciliation, not comic relief. Either way, conventional wisdom remains in tact: Superficial identification with a sailor, or a Muslim, doesn’t a sailor or Muslim make. Nor does it negate authentic characteristics of real sailors or Muslims. To presume otherwise is delusion, or perhaps even an act of deception.
• Next: Framing Mismatched Beliefs as “Similar”— Doctrines, Devotions, Practices
Once again, Islamic precedence accepts that the end (ummah) justifies the means—i.e., identifying with other faiths as a semblance of solidarity, if only superficially. Yet another tactic employed by religious syncretists is to recast mismatched doctrines, beliefs, and practices as being “similar” when, in fact, they are not.
Doctrinal Similarities
For example, Buddlam tacticians fashion incompatible, core doctrines of Buddhism and Islam as if they were agreed upon Islamo-Buddhist “talking points.”
Re.: The Prophet/Maitreya
Some religionists associate the future Buddha Maitreya (the Loving- or Merciful- One) with the Prophet Muhammad (servant of the Merciful One), but presumed similitude doesn’t stop here. Qur’anic mention of the fig tree is thought by some to reference Buddha, who purportedly attained enlightenment at the foot of one.
More specifically, Buddha is “the one from Kifl” (the Prophet, characterized in the Qur’an as patient and good). However compelling these comparisons, Buddlamists err by pairing Buddha and Muhammad as principled “messengers” intent on achieving the same things; but the respective world religions birthed by them belie this fallacy.7
Re.: Muhammad/Rahman
It’s noted that early 11th century Sanskrit Kalachakra Texts contain beliefs fundamental to Islam—e.g., texts apply a Persian word used for white-clad Arab invaders whose destiny was to please the Compassionate One (Rahman). Some go so far as to identify Muhammad as an avatar (incarnation) of Rahman whose triumphs affected a higher rebirth in paradise. Drawing from convoluted notions, as these, Buddlamists devise and advance a fanciful pipe dream promising religious harmony, understanding, and peaceful cooperation.8
Re.: Greater Jihad/Triumphant Mind Battles
To Buddlamists, jihad (“proper effort”) resonates with the Triumphant One (Buddha) said to have won the mind battle over ignorance, greed, attachment, anger, and hatred. For both camps (Buddhism and Islam), no price is too dear. Today’s Islamic suicide bombers (more accurately, “homicide” bombers) bring to mind Zen monks who incinerated themselves during the Vietnam War. Because Buddhist teachings include something similar to a lesser jihad, and the greater jihad is the struggle against lust, it stands to reason that Buddhists can and should dialogue doctrinally with Islamists.9
Devotional Similarities
Beyond reconciling incompatible doctrines as if they really were reconcilable, Buddlam tacticians attribute fallacious similarities to devotional practices of two distinctly separate world religions.
Sharia/Meditation
The Arabic word sharia (meaning “the grand boulevard” or “the street”) encompasses ritual worship, transactions and contracts, morals and manners, beliefs, and punishments. In short, it represents law that people must obey for metaphorical traffic to move easily in the world.
Though Buddha did not teach a legal code, Muhammad did. A Muslim under sharia may not convert to Christianity, steal, or commit adultery under threat of punishment, be it flogging, stoning, amputation, or execution. Legally, he may redeem holy ground, assist jihadists, fake peace, and endorse female genital mutilation and/or polygamy.
In contrast, Buddhist ethical teachings are derived from Kalachakra Tantra, not sharia; and Buddha’s foundational belief was restraint from ten especially destructive actions—including physical acts of killing, stealing, and inappropriate sexual behavior; verbal ones of lying, speaking divisively, using harsh and cruel language, speaking idle words; and mental ones of covetous thinking, thinking with malice and distorted, antagonistic thinking with which one denies the value of anything positive.
By intentionally mischaracterizing sharia as “methodoloy to attain truth,” Buddlam pairs it with Buddhist meditation, but wrongly so. While sharia is clearly a set of “do’s” and “don’t’s,” Buddhist meditation is not. Rather, it involves a variety of techniques to develop mindfulness, concentration, tranquility, and insight.10
Dhikrs/Mantras
Islamists and Buddhists employ divergent, but seemingly similar methods to overcome pitfalls and obstacles. For example, repeated recitation of Buddha’s names and sacred syllables (mantras) counted on rosary beads purportedly parallels recitation of dhikrs in Islam. Just as Sufis recite the names of God, Buddhists praise the names of Manjushri.11
Concluding Thoughts
Simply put, syncretism is doctrinal mix as evidenced in the growing popularity of Buddlam, doctrinal mix of Buddhism with Islam. While pursuers of religious commonality in the West favor Chrislam, those in the East favor Buddlam.
Postmodernists accept most any brand of spirituality that isn’t unduly divisive. For the sake of building upon “common ground”—this, in an effort to reconcile creeds that logically clash—compliant religionists from Buddhism and Islam both forfeit (or feign to forfeit) traditional core doctrines of their respective religions.
Accordingly, Islamist pacifists tactically embrace Buddhism with no mind to yielding their Grand Design for Islamic dominance. When it serves their own purpose, making friends with their nemesis is fine. So is recasting infidels’ beliefs as somehow “similar.” These understand that, once Islam’s taproot is well established, the faithful may drop the façade of conciliation and, in turn, summons the conquered to heed the call of Allah to Islam.
More to come in Part 3.
1. http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/11/chrislam-spreads-throughout-america.html.
2. Alexander Berzin. “Buddhist-Muslim Doctrinal Relations: Past, Present, and Future.” Originally published with extensive footnotes in Buddhist Attitudes toward Other Religions, ed. Perry Schmidt-Leukel. (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2008): 212 – 236.
3. Debra Rae. “Islamic Fundamentalism.” ABCs of Globalism: A Vigilant Christian’s Glossary. (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1999): 160.
4. Muhammad bin Maslama once admitted, “Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.” To that, the Prophet replied, “Say what you like; you are absolved, free to say whatever you must” (Ishaq: 365; Tabari VII: 94). See also: http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam.
5. William Wagner. “The Quiet Revolution.” How Islam Plans to Change the World. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004): 39-42.
6. Reza Shah Kazemi. “Introduction.” Common Ground between Islam and Buddhism. (Louisville: Fons Vitae,2010): Introduction by H.H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and H.R.H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad.
7. Tenzin Gyatso. “Many Faiths, One Truth.” (New York: New York Times, 24 May 2010): The Opinion Pages.
8. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_1867868580.html
9. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
10. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
11. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
Part 2: Baited by Buddlam
These days, while describing themselves as “spiritual,” increasing numbers of Westerners embrace “no religious affiliation.” Though creed, commandments, and ritual are falling by the wayside, the impulse to link with some “higher being” appears to be on the rise.
East is East, and West is East
To postmodernists, whatever brand of spirituality floats one boat is fine—just as long as the boat’s not rocked. In the West, religious inclusionism appeals especially to nominal Christians. For mainline church folk committed to the Doctrine of Tolerance, “Chrislam” fills the bill nicely. After all, “ecumenical reconciliation” beats the alternatives—i.e., jihad and War on Terror.1
On the other hand, pursuers of religious commonality in the East favor what’s called “Buddlam,” doctrinal mix of Buddhism with Islam.2 Syncretistic Buddlam poses no problem to Buddhists who historically endorse “many paths.” Nor even to Islamists who tactically embrace inclusionism all the while coddling their own desired end to the contrary.
For the sake of building upon “common ground”—this, in an effort to reconcile creeds that logically clash—willing inclusionists take one for the team, as it were, by forfeiting (or feigning to forfeit) traditional core doctrines of their respective religions.
Syncretism on the Sly
Contrary to popular belief, not all orthodox Muslims are offensive activists who refuse to assimilate. Some are defensive pacifists for whom assimilation (or presence) serves an underlying objective to preserve the house of Islam (dar-al-Islam) and foster its growth.
In short, the destiny mission for all orthodox Islamists is complete world dominance. It’s believed that, in time, the community of non-Muslims (dar-al-kuffer) will comply, whether by conversion or coercion; and one caliph armed with sharia will rule over a global community of all those who affirm Islam (ummah).3
With a single eye for this Islamic Grand Design, Muslim proponents of Buddlam target and, then, strategically downplay religious differences—this, in the bogus name of “religious harmony.” Islamists are okay with deception for self-interest.4
Put another way, Islamic precedence accepts that the end (ummah) justifies the means—e.g., identifying with other faiths, if only superficially, as a semblance of solidarity. Other tactics include recasting mismatched beliefs as “similar,” or simply trivializing them as superfluous when, in fact, they are not.
Once Islam’s taproot is well established, the faithful are free to drop the façade and, then, summons the conquered to heed the call of Allah to Islam (da’wah) whereupon shouts of Allahu akbar, meaning “Allah is Greater,” will silence the defunct, but currently useful “many-paths-to-God” mantra. 5
• First: Outward Identification in a Show of Solidarity
Throughout the hajj, Muslim men are required to dress alike in order to represent equality of all Muslims, whether rich or poor. Regardless of one’s sect or country of origin, male pilgrims don sandals and drape themselves in two sheets of white cloth to remind them of simplicity, humility, and self-purification.
Not unlike Muslim Arabs whom the early 11th century Sanskrit Texts depict as “white-clad” invaders, Buddhists with shaved heads also wear special robes. Buddlamists applaud this outward identification, if only by wardrobe, as apparent indication of solidarity, if not sameness.6
With this in mind, I recall a popular comedy routine from decades past in which the Smothers Brothers sang a memorable, tongue-in-cheek ditty. Lyrics expounded on wearing the collar, hat, raincoat, and shoes of a sailor (anthropologist, or refrigerator repairman—whatever) so that some day they’d be sailors, too—“the same as their old man.”
Though Buddhist, the Dalai Lama visits local mosques and dons Islamic garments—but for the sake of conciliation, not comic relief. Either way, conventional wisdom remains in tact: Superficial identification with a sailor, or a Muslim, doesn’t a sailor or Muslim make. Nor does it negate authentic characteristics of real sailors or Muslims. To presume otherwise is delusion, or perhaps even an act of deception.
• Next: Framing Mismatched Beliefs as “Similar”— Doctrines, Devotions, Practices
Once again, Islamic precedence accepts that the end (ummah) justifies the means—i.e., identifying with other faiths as a semblance of solidarity, if only superficially. Yet another tactic employed by religious syncretists is to recast mismatched doctrines, beliefs, and practices as being “similar” when, in fact, they are not.
Doctrinal Similarities
For example, Buddlam tacticians fashion incompatible, core doctrines of Buddhism and Islam as if they were agreed upon Islamo-Buddhist “talking points.”
Re.: The Prophet/Maitreya
Some religionists associate the future Buddha Maitreya (the Loving- or Merciful- One) with the Prophet Muhammad (servant of the Merciful One), but presumed similitude doesn’t stop here. Qur’anic mention of the fig tree is thought by some to reference Buddha, who purportedly attained enlightenment at the foot of one.
More specifically, Buddha is “the one from Kifl” (the Prophet, characterized in the Qur’an as patient and good). However compelling these comparisons, Buddlamists err by pairing Buddha and Muhammad as principled “messengers” intent on achieving the same things; but the respective world religions birthed by them belie this fallacy.7
Re.: Muhammad/Rahman
It’s noted that early 11th century Sanskrit Kalachakra Texts contain beliefs fundamental to Islam—e.g., texts apply a Persian word used for white-clad Arab invaders whose destiny was to please the Compassionate One (Rahman). Some go so far as to identify Muhammad as an avatar (incarnation) of Rahman whose triumphs affected a higher rebirth in paradise. Drawing from convoluted notions, as these, Buddlamists devise and advance a fanciful pipe dream promising religious harmony, understanding, and peaceful cooperation.8
Re.: Greater Jihad/Triumphant Mind Battles
To Buddlamists, jihad (“proper effort”) resonates with the Triumphant One (Buddha) said to have won the mind battle over ignorance, greed, attachment, anger, and hatred. For both camps (Buddhism and Islam), no price is too dear. Today’s Islamic suicide bombers (more accurately, “homicide” bombers) bring to mind Zen monks who incinerated themselves during the Vietnam War. Because Buddhist teachings include something similar to a lesser jihad, and the greater jihad is the struggle against lust, it stands to reason that Buddhists can and should dialogue doctrinally with Islamists.9
Devotional Similarities
Beyond reconciling incompatible doctrines as if they really were reconcilable, Buddlam tacticians attribute fallacious similarities to devotional practices of two distinctly separate world religions.
Sharia/Meditation
The Arabic word sharia (meaning “the grand boulevard” or “the street”) encompasses ritual worship, transactions and contracts, morals and manners, beliefs, and punishments. In short, it represents law that people must obey for metaphorical traffic to move easily in the world.
Though Buddha did not teach a legal code, Muhammad did. A Muslim under sharia may not convert to Christianity, steal, or commit adultery under threat of punishment, be it flogging, stoning, amputation, or execution. Legally, he may redeem holy ground, assist jihadists, fake peace, and endorse female genital mutilation and/or polygamy.
In contrast, Buddhist ethical teachings are derived from Kalachakra Tantra, not sharia; and Buddha’s foundational belief was restraint from ten especially destructive actions—including physical acts of killing, stealing, and inappropriate sexual behavior; verbal ones of lying, speaking divisively, using harsh and cruel language, speaking idle words; and mental ones of covetous thinking, thinking with malice and distorted, antagonistic thinking with which one denies the value of anything positive.
By intentionally mischaracterizing sharia as “methodoloy to attain truth,” Buddlam pairs it with Buddhist meditation, but wrongly so. While sharia is clearly a set of “do’s” and “don’t’s,” Buddhist meditation is not. Rather, it involves a variety of techniques to develop mindfulness, concentration, tranquility, and insight.10
Dhikrs/Mantras
Islamists and Buddhists employ divergent, but seemingly similar methods to overcome pitfalls and obstacles. For example, repeated recitation of Buddha’s names and sacred syllables (mantras) counted on rosary beads purportedly parallels recitation of dhikrs in Islam. Just as Sufis recite the names of God, Buddhists praise the names of Manjushri.11
Concluding Thoughts
Simply put, syncretism is doctrinal mix as evidenced in the growing popularity of Buddlam, doctrinal mix of Buddhism with Islam. While pursuers of religious commonality in the West favor Chrislam, those in the East favor Buddlam.
Postmodernists accept most any brand of spirituality that isn’t unduly divisive. For the sake of building upon “common ground”—this, in an effort to reconcile creeds that logically clash—compliant religionists from Buddhism and Islam both forfeit (or feign to forfeit) traditional core doctrines of their respective religions.
Accordingly, Islamist pacifists tactically embrace Buddhism with no mind to yielding their Grand Design for Islamic dominance. When it serves their own purpose, making friends with their nemesis is fine. So is recasting infidels’ beliefs as somehow “similar.” These understand that, once Islam’s taproot is well established, the faithful may drop the façade of conciliation and, in turn, summons the conquered to heed the call of Allah to Islam.
More to come in Part 3.
1. http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/11/chrislam-spreads-throughout-america.html.
2. Alexander Berzin. “Buddhist-Muslim Doctrinal Relations: Past, Present, and Future.” Originally published with extensive footnotes in Buddhist Attitudes toward Other Religions, ed. Perry Schmidt-Leukel. (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2008): 212 – 236.
3. Debra Rae. “Islamic Fundamentalism.” ABCs of Globalism: A Vigilant Christian’s Glossary. (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1999): 160.
4. Muhammad bin Maslama once admitted, “Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.” To that, the Prophet replied, “Say what you like; you are absolved, free to say whatever you must” (Ishaq: 365; Tabari VII: 94). See also: http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam.
5. William Wagner. “The Quiet Revolution.” How Islam Plans to Change the World. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004): 39-42.
6. Reza Shah Kazemi. “Introduction.” Common Ground between Islam and Buddhism. (Louisville: Fons Vitae,2010): Introduction by H.H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and H.R.H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad.
7. Tenzin Gyatso. “Many Faiths, One Truth.” (New York: New York Times, 24 May 2010): The Opinion Pages.
8. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_1867868580.html
9. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
10. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
11. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Tactical Pursuit of Religious Commonality
Today’s Tactical Pursuit of Religious Commonality
Part 1: Exclusionism, Pluralism, Inclusionism
It’s said that “if words are to enter men’s minds and bear fruit, they must be the right words shaped cunningly to pass men’s defenses and explode silently and effectually within their minds” (J. B. Phillips). While the fruit of fitly spoken words is sweet, opportunists also use cunningly devised terms to shroud their own provocative agendas that, in the end, bear rotten fruit.1
For instance, universally agreeable twenty-first century buzzwords as “transformation,” “transcendence,” and “collaboration” may appeal broadly, but their generic meanings obscure widespread grasp of how they’d look if acted out in real time. By definition, globalism is an interdependent, worldwide design with geopolitical, economic, and spiritual components.
For the transformative “Grand Design” of collaborative globalism to be realized, national sovereignty, free enterprise capitalism, and biblical fundamentalism must give way to bio-regional global governance, sustainability (wealth redistribution), and syncretism (doctrinal mix). Personal and/or group identities must defer to the Global Village in which populations are controlled and private ownership of property is curtailed. 2
Because religionists of all colors dominate the global population, and religious passion serves as a tremendous boost to (or threat against) democratic transnationalism, globalists work to build bridges of commonality between Eastern and Western belief systems. More often than not, in today’s emerging one-world paradigm, fundamental Western values bow to collectivist counterparts, many of which originate in the East. Purportedly for “the common good,” compliant world citizens submit to a new earth, pan-religious ethic, rather than to traditional mores.3
Tactical Pursuit of Commonality via Changeover, Commendation, Confusion
Religious commonality is accomplished by hawking politically correct diversity, popularly touted as “tolerance,” and by merging and thereby morphing traditional faith systems into oblivion. Among the world’s religionists are exclusivists, pluralists, and inclusionists.
Exclusivists adhere to one true and nonnegotiable path to salvation or liberation. Globalists finger fundamentalism as counterproductive to the burgeoning novus ordo seclorum (“new secular world order of the ages”) and instead favor doctrinal mix (syncretism) over dogma. Scripted “dialogue” encourages changeover to alternatives more amenable to the one-world plan.
Next, pluralists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation, none of which reigns supreme. If you follow Buddhist practices, for instance, you ostensibly get to Buddhist heaven; and if you follow Muslim practices, you get to Muslim paradise. For this reason, it’s assumed that I’m okay; you’re okay; and so is everyone else. Hence, there’s no need for conversion. Globalists promote and placate pluralists as especially useful; predictably, they commend pluralism for “tolerance” (more accurately, for malleability).
Finally, inclusionists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation; however, in the end, a seeker will naturally come to realize “the superior path.” Proponents recognize, identify with and, then, downplay religious differences by recasting them as similar or by trivializing them as superfluous “side issues.”4
The Chrislam Con
Viewed by many as its chief obstacle, well-established religious creed must be softened in order to realize the new, one-world order. With a mind to reset religious canon, globalists introduce confusion simply by merging disparate faith systems. This brand of inclusionism particularly appeals to nominal Christians who are more committed to “tolerance” than they are to biblical truth. As was the case with Eve, the loaded question “Hath God said?” gives them pause. In the name of “diversity,” these swap out the proverbial waistband of sound doctrine with the loose elastic of comfy compromise.
Recently, the Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church, Houston, joined Christian communities in Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit to encourage “ecumenical reconciliation” between Christianity and Islam. Theirs was a sort of worldview potpourri mixing together elements of Christianity with Islam. Predictably called Chrislam, this brand of inclusive ecumenicalism qualifies mutually inharmonious texts—ie., Bible and Qur’an—as divinely inspired.5
In turn, when common ground is reached between Islamists and Buddhists, the result is called Buddlam; similarly, syncretizing Islamic doctrine with Hindu beliefs produces what’s called Hindlam. All three dilute the essence of their respective belief systems.
Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue
In 1996 a conference called Alternative Politics for Asia convened in Penang, Malaysia, in order to spark Buddhist-Muslim dialogue. By lassoing traditional “wisdom” and spiritual values of both world religions, and by merging them into a muddied mix of contradicting religious ideals, participants hoped, albeit unsuccessfully, to solve regional problems—namely, intergroup violence, armed conflicts, global warming, environmental degradation, and drug abuse.6
Thereafter, in June of 2006, the Dusit Declaration likewise fostered harmonious relations essentially by weakening Western free enterprise capitalism and muting biblical ethic that supports it—e.g., respect for rule of law, individual effort, and fair dealing.7 The Declaration concluded: “The hegemonic power of global capitalism is the new ‘religion’ which threatens to undermine the universal, spiritual and moral values and world views embodied in Buddhism, Islam and other religions.”
Adding: This is why “Buddhists, Muslims and others should forge a more profound unity and solidarity, which will be able to offer another vision of a just, compassionate and humane universal civilization [devoid of biblical ethic, of course]. It is with this mission in mind that we hereby announce the launch of a permanent Buddhist-Muslim Citizens Commission for Southeast Asia.”8
Dalai Lama, Leading the Pack
The key proponent for this trendy splurge of merge is His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama who contends that sustainable development (even survival) depends on nations, cultures, religions, and individuals sharing responsibility for solving universal problems (seductive, yes; transparent, no).9
Here’s the caveat: The Dalai Lama defends Islam, not by relaying its ostensibly admirable tenets, but rather by “reshaping people’s views of the religion.” Instead of characterizing Islam as purveyor of contact, conflict, conquest, and condescension, he simply ignores the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation in an effort to “reshape” perception of Islam into a religion of peace and goodwill. To reject his religious renovation is to be “divisive.”10
To the one-world crowd, an ounce of divisiveness is worth a pound of rehab. For example, while on a lecture tour, Israeli journalist and Jewish theologian Avi Lipkin was sentenced in accordance with Swiss anti-racism law. Why? For concluding that “minarets are not church towers,” but they are “nails in the coffin of the West.” Rather than submit to re-education in some mosque (touted as “community service”), Avi instead preferred a jail sentence for his supposedly heinous crime of being politically incorrect.11
HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan, on the Bandwagon
On 12 May 2010 the Dalai Lama joined a panel of select scholars who together launched the Common Ground Project. The project was planned over several years by HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan who, along with the Dalai Lama, set out to nurture spiritual relationship between their respective faith traditions.
Never mind that core beliefs of Buddhism and Islam clash irreconcilably. For instance, Buddha never admitted to being “god,” nor do Buddhists recognize any god, period. In contrast, fundamental belief in Islam (shahada) recognizes no god but Allah, whose messenger is Muhammad and whose acceptance is mandatory, whether voluntarily or, if need be, by force.
Dhimma status, as relating to the Pact of Umar, purportedly protects Christians and Jews who live in covenant with their Muslim conquerors. For Islamists, the historical concept of “people of the Book” seems to have widened from monotheistic religions, as these, to include Buddhism. Three decades after the Prophet, Buddhists received dhimmi status.
For following ethical principles of higher authority, conquered Buddhists were allowed to follow their religion as long as laypeople among them joined Jews and Christians in submitting to burdensome restrictions and in paying poll taxes from which Islamists are exempt.
Far from fostering goodwill, Islamists vilify non-Muslims as hated dar-al-bughd. According to the Hadith, the Prophet characterized the majority of hell-fire’s dwellers as ungrateful women. Attitudes, as these, hardly lend themselves to conciliation.12
“Shipwrecked by the Laughter of the Gods”
Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama persists in stressing interfaith cooperation. After all, he reasons, everyone wishes to be happy and not to suffer; and the entire world is interdependent, is it not? While understandings, as these, ring true in a very general sense, they fail to flesh out the essence of core belief systems.
The Dalai Lama argues further that, if you truly believe your religion comes from God, you’re obliged to accept that He created others as well; but I disagree. As Albert Einstein once reasoned, “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Speaking of which, mythology teaches us well that “the gods” are loathe to yield their respective domains—e.g., for the kingship of the gods, Zeus challenged Cronus to war. Today’s pantheon of gods is no different. No amount of wishing, hoping, dreaming, and scheming will deter Allah’s followers from their headstrong bid for global dominance.
Though trendy, today’s syncretism is not the stuff religious “harmony” and “solidarity” are made of; and truth is never subject to my belief or yours. It’s the very essence of God Himself. Neither time, nor cultures, nor preferences, nor ideologies, nor clever tactics can redefine or distil truth. It simply is.13
More to follow in Part 2.
1. http://classicsnetwork.com/quotes/topics/Cunning.
2. Thomas Horn. “Globalism: Utopian Dream or Luciferic Nightmare?” Twenty Experts Advise You on How to Overcome the Most Frightening Issues You Will Face This Century. (Crane: Defender, a division of Anomalos Publishing House, 2009): 79-110.
3. Jesus warned that “if it were possible” the Master of Deception would deceive even the very elect of God (Matthew 24:24). For this reason, believers are warned to be watchful (2 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Peter 5:8).
4. http://jdryer.blogspot.com/2007/07/inclusionist-exclusionist-pluralistwhat.html.
5. http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/11/chrislam-spreads-throughout-america.html.
6. Alexander Berzin. “Buddhist-Muslim Doctrinal Relations: Past, Present, and Future.” Originally published with
extensive footnotes in Buddhist Attitudes toward Other Religions, ed. Perry Schmidt-Leukel. (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2008): 212 – 236.
7. Hebrews 13:17; Proverbs 6:6; Micah 6:8; Jeremiah 22:13; 1 Timothy 5:18.
8. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
9. Tenzin Gyatso. “Many Faiths, One Truth.” (New York: New York Times, 24 May 2010): The Opinion Pages.
10. The Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation holds that a latter revelation from Allah nullifies any earlier revelation received. Accordingly, books of Moses (Tawrat), Psalms (Zabur), and the Gospels (Injil) are said to be divinely inspired; however, because they came earlier, these writings are inferior to the Qur’an. Furthermore, Qur’anic verses advocating violence against infidels (called the Medina Approach) nullify more moderate statements of an earlier revelation (called the Mecca Approach).
11. http://sheikyermami.com/2011/01/23/switzerland-jewish-writer-sentenced-for-racism-against-islam/.
12. William Wagner. How Islam Plans to Change the World. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004): 281-283.
13. Reza Shah Kazemi. “Introduction.” Common Ground between Islam and Buddhism. (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 2010): Introduction by H.H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and H.R.H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad. See John 14:6 and compare John 8:24-28, 18:5-8 and Revelation 1:17-18 with Exodus 3:13-14 and Isaiah 43:10-11, 25.
Part 1: Exclusionism, Pluralism, Inclusionism
It’s said that “if words are to enter men’s minds and bear fruit, they must be the right words shaped cunningly to pass men’s defenses and explode silently and effectually within their minds” (J. B. Phillips). While the fruit of fitly spoken words is sweet, opportunists also use cunningly devised terms to shroud their own provocative agendas that, in the end, bear rotten fruit.1
For instance, universally agreeable twenty-first century buzzwords as “transformation,” “transcendence,” and “collaboration” may appeal broadly, but their generic meanings obscure widespread grasp of how they’d look if acted out in real time. By definition, globalism is an interdependent, worldwide design with geopolitical, economic, and spiritual components.
For the transformative “Grand Design” of collaborative globalism to be realized, national sovereignty, free enterprise capitalism, and biblical fundamentalism must give way to bio-regional global governance, sustainability (wealth redistribution), and syncretism (doctrinal mix). Personal and/or group identities must defer to the Global Village in which populations are controlled and private ownership of property is curtailed. 2
Because religionists of all colors dominate the global population, and religious passion serves as a tremendous boost to (or threat against) democratic transnationalism, globalists work to build bridges of commonality between Eastern and Western belief systems. More often than not, in today’s emerging one-world paradigm, fundamental Western values bow to collectivist counterparts, many of which originate in the East. Purportedly for “the common good,” compliant world citizens submit to a new earth, pan-religious ethic, rather than to traditional mores.3
Tactical Pursuit of Commonality via Changeover, Commendation, Confusion
Religious commonality is accomplished by hawking politically correct diversity, popularly touted as “tolerance,” and by merging and thereby morphing traditional faith systems into oblivion. Among the world’s religionists are exclusivists, pluralists, and inclusionists.
Exclusivists adhere to one true and nonnegotiable path to salvation or liberation. Globalists finger fundamentalism as counterproductive to the burgeoning novus ordo seclorum (“new secular world order of the ages”) and instead favor doctrinal mix (syncretism) over dogma. Scripted “dialogue” encourages changeover to alternatives more amenable to the one-world plan.
Next, pluralists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation, none of which reigns supreme. If you follow Buddhist practices, for instance, you ostensibly get to Buddhist heaven; and if you follow Muslim practices, you get to Muslim paradise. For this reason, it’s assumed that I’m okay; you’re okay; and so is everyone else. Hence, there’s no need for conversion. Globalists promote and placate pluralists as especially useful; predictably, they commend pluralism for “tolerance” (more accurately, for malleability).
Finally, inclusionists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation; however, in the end, a seeker will naturally come to realize “the superior path.” Proponents recognize, identify with and, then, downplay religious differences by recasting them as similar or by trivializing them as superfluous “side issues.”4
The Chrislam Con
Viewed by many as its chief obstacle, well-established religious creed must be softened in order to realize the new, one-world order. With a mind to reset religious canon, globalists introduce confusion simply by merging disparate faith systems. This brand of inclusionism particularly appeals to nominal Christians who are more committed to “tolerance” than they are to biblical truth. As was the case with Eve, the loaded question “Hath God said?” gives them pause. In the name of “diversity,” these swap out the proverbial waistband of sound doctrine with the loose elastic of comfy compromise.
Recently, the Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church, Houston, joined Christian communities in Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit to encourage “ecumenical reconciliation” between Christianity and Islam. Theirs was a sort of worldview potpourri mixing together elements of Christianity with Islam. Predictably called Chrislam, this brand of inclusive ecumenicalism qualifies mutually inharmonious texts—ie., Bible and Qur’an—as divinely inspired.5
In turn, when common ground is reached between Islamists and Buddhists, the result is called Buddlam; similarly, syncretizing Islamic doctrine with Hindu beliefs produces what’s called Hindlam. All three dilute the essence of their respective belief systems.
Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue
In 1996 a conference called Alternative Politics for Asia convened in Penang, Malaysia, in order to spark Buddhist-Muslim dialogue. By lassoing traditional “wisdom” and spiritual values of both world religions, and by merging them into a muddied mix of contradicting religious ideals, participants hoped, albeit unsuccessfully, to solve regional problems—namely, intergroup violence, armed conflicts, global warming, environmental degradation, and drug abuse.6
Thereafter, in June of 2006, the Dusit Declaration likewise fostered harmonious relations essentially by weakening Western free enterprise capitalism and muting biblical ethic that supports it—e.g., respect for rule of law, individual effort, and fair dealing.7 The Declaration concluded: “The hegemonic power of global capitalism is the new ‘religion’ which threatens to undermine the universal, spiritual and moral values and world views embodied in Buddhism, Islam and other religions.”
Adding: This is why “Buddhists, Muslims and others should forge a more profound unity and solidarity, which will be able to offer another vision of a just, compassionate and humane universal civilization [devoid of biblical ethic, of course]. It is with this mission in mind that we hereby announce the launch of a permanent Buddhist-Muslim Citizens Commission for Southeast Asia.”8
Dalai Lama, Leading the Pack
The key proponent for this trendy splurge of merge is His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama who contends that sustainable development (even survival) depends on nations, cultures, religions, and individuals sharing responsibility for solving universal problems (seductive, yes; transparent, no).9
Here’s the caveat: The Dalai Lama defends Islam, not by relaying its ostensibly admirable tenets, but rather by “reshaping people’s views of the religion.” Instead of characterizing Islam as purveyor of contact, conflict, conquest, and condescension, he simply ignores the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation in an effort to “reshape” perception of Islam into a religion of peace and goodwill. To reject his religious renovation is to be “divisive.”10
To the one-world crowd, an ounce of divisiveness is worth a pound of rehab. For example, while on a lecture tour, Israeli journalist and Jewish theologian Avi Lipkin was sentenced in accordance with Swiss anti-racism law. Why? For concluding that “minarets are not church towers,” but they are “nails in the coffin of the West.” Rather than submit to re-education in some mosque (touted as “community service”), Avi instead preferred a jail sentence for his supposedly heinous crime of being politically incorrect.11
HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan, on the Bandwagon
On 12 May 2010 the Dalai Lama joined a panel of select scholars who together launched the Common Ground Project. The project was planned over several years by HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan who, along with the Dalai Lama, set out to nurture spiritual relationship between their respective faith traditions.
Never mind that core beliefs of Buddhism and Islam clash irreconcilably. For instance, Buddha never admitted to being “god,” nor do Buddhists recognize any god, period. In contrast, fundamental belief in Islam (shahada) recognizes no god but Allah, whose messenger is Muhammad and whose acceptance is mandatory, whether voluntarily or, if need be, by force.
Dhimma status, as relating to the Pact of Umar, purportedly protects Christians and Jews who live in covenant with their Muslim conquerors. For Islamists, the historical concept of “people of the Book” seems to have widened from monotheistic religions, as these, to include Buddhism. Three decades after the Prophet, Buddhists received dhimmi status.
For following ethical principles of higher authority, conquered Buddhists were allowed to follow their religion as long as laypeople among them joined Jews and Christians in submitting to burdensome restrictions and in paying poll taxes from which Islamists are exempt.
Far from fostering goodwill, Islamists vilify non-Muslims as hated dar-al-bughd. According to the Hadith, the Prophet characterized the majority of hell-fire’s dwellers as ungrateful women. Attitudes, as these, hardly lend themselves to conciliation.12
“Shipwrecked by the Laughter of the Gods”
Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama persists in stressing interfaith cooperation. After all, he reasons, everyone wishes to be happy and not to suffer; and the entire world is interdependent, is it not? While understandings, as these, ring true in a very general sense, they fail to flesh out the essence of core belief systems.
The Dalai Lama argues further that, if you truly believe your religion comes from God, you’re obliged to accept that He created others as well; but I disagree. As Albert Einstein once reasoned, “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Speaking of which, mythology teaches us well that “the gods” are loathe to yield their respective domains—e.g., for the kingship of the gods, Zeus challenged Cronus to war. Today’s pantheon of gods is no different. No amount of wishing, hoping, dreaming, and scheming will deter Allah’s followers from their headstrong bid for global dominance.
Though trendy, today’s syncretism is not the stuff religious “harmony” and “solidarity” are made of; and truth is never subject to my belief or yours. It’s the very essence of God Himself. Neither time, nor cultures, nor preferences, nor ideologies, nor clever tactics can redefine or distil truth. It simply is.13
More to follow in Part 2.
1. http://classicsnetwork.com/quotes/topics/Cunning.
2. Thomas Horn. “Globalism: Utopian Dream or Luciferic Nightmare?” Twenty Experts Advise You on How to Overcome the Most Frightening Issues You Will Face This Century. (Crane: Defender, a division of Anomalos Publishing House, 2009): 79-110.
3. Jesus warned that “if it were possible” the Master of Deception would deceive even the very elect of God (Matthew 24:24). For this reason, believers are warned to be watchful (2 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Peter 5:8).
4. http://jdryer.blogspot.com/2007/07/inclusionist-exclusionist-pluralistwhat.html.
5. http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/11/chrislam-spreads-throughout-america.html.
6. Alexander Berzin. “Buddhist-Muslim Doctrinal Relations: Past, Present, and Future.” Originally published with
extensive footnotes in Buddhist Attitudes toward Other Religions, ed. Perry Schmidt-Leukel. (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2008): 212 – 236.
7. Hebrews 13:17; Proverbs 6:6; Micah 6:8; Jeremiah 22:13; 1 Timothy 5:18.
8. Berzin, Buddhist Attitudes, 79-110.
9. Tenzin Gyatso. “Many Faiths, One Truth.” (New York: New York Times, 24 May 2010): The Opinion Pages.
10. The Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation holds that a latter revelation from Allah nullifies any earlier revelation received. Accordingly, books of Moses (Tawrat), Psalms (Zabur), and the Gospels (Injil) are said to be divinely inspired; however, because they came earlier, these writings are inferior to the Qur’an. Furthermore, Qur’anic verses advocating violence against infidels (called the Medina Approach) nullify more moderate statements of an earlier revelation (called the Mecca Approach).
11. http://sheikyermami.com/2011/01/23/switzerland-jewish-writer-sentenced-for-racism-against-islam/.
12. William Wagner. How Islam Plans to Change the World. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004): 281-283.
13. Reza Shah Kazemi. “Introduction.” Common Ground between Islam and Buddhism. (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 2010): Introduction by H.H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and H.R.H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad. See John 14:6 and compare John 8:24-28, 18:5-8 and Revelation 1:17-18 with Exodus 3:13-14 and Isaiah 43:10-11, 25.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Mobalizing for Social Transformation
Recipe for Revolution
Part 2
A child of the revolutionary sixties, I witnessed firsthand the unprecedented social upheaval of that turbulent decade. Especially on college campuses, the counterculture gained momentum as more and more students “turned on, tuned in, and dropped out.”1 Along with other nations, the U.S. pushed hard for center-left social reform; and its impact was lasting.
Just ask Curtis Bower. Decades later in 1992, Bower was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley at a time when the Communist Party of America divided. Upon slipping in undercover to one of their meetings, Bowers learned of a highly developed agenda to infiltrate institutions so that, in the end, American families would be destroyed (via cohabitation, hijacked public education, the feminist movement); businesses would falter (via radical environmentalism); and our culture of religion and morality would collapse (via militant gay rights and hate-crimes legislation).2
Back from the Grave
Though the 1992 cast was new, the script was not. In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to the plan’s underbelly. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” 3 Far from crushed, America’s flourishing Communist Party of 1992 honed Thomas’ strategy by exploiting the obliging aftermath of the sixties revolution.
At its core, communism upholds damaging credos of rulers “from the grave” such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx, whose notions—“God is dead”; “man is animal” and “lives for the State,” respectively—serve to justify violence. Non-party members, called “useful idiots,” do the dirty work for party elitists and, once used to the full, these socialist “comrades” are likewise rubbed out. Genius strategy, don’t you think?
Bower thought so. Some fifteen years later, as Idaho State Representative, Bower recalled the Berkley meeting and observed that the agenda was advancing, as planned. Over time, both major political parties had moved left of center. Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all had served to advance Thomas’ strategy.4
Aware that when a country goes down, others—be it China, Russia, the EU, or radical Islamists — are poised to fill the gap, Bowers further understood that, if America fails economically, she’ll also go down militarily. And this will mark the end of global freedom for a very long time. In letters to newspapers, Representative Bowers sounded the alarm.4
Shrouded in Weasel Words
Well-informed Americans get it that communism bears responsibility for more mass murders than the combined number of deaths tallied in all modern wars. This alone renders the term unsavory. In response, savvy strategists work word-craft magic by replacing the Marxist lexicon with kinder, gentler euphemisms, more appropriately called “weasel words.”
As is the case with most small omnivores, weasels are known for cunning. Weasel words share this attribute—e.g., use of “saving the planet” (for earth servitude), “commonism” (for communism), “social justice” (for Cultural Marxism), and “the greater good” (for blatant nepotism).
• “Saving the Planet” (for Earth Servitude)
For example, when big government gains control of the distribution and use of energy, it’s poised to interfere in every aspect of life. Indeed, “environment” comes from a French word meaning “surroundings.” Hence, it speaks to “everythingism”—that is to say, government control of every aspect of life. Rather than expose an underlying power-grab agenda, progressives instead fabricate the more palatable, even noble pretense of “saving the planet.”
• “Commonism” (for Communism) and “the Greater Good” (for Blatant Nepotism)
The love child of global super-capitalism, when mated with old school communism, is popularly called “commonism.” By transforming private intellectual assets and nationally controlled natural resources into the global commons, commonism effectively weds the bourgeoisie and the working proletariat—allegedly for the greater good. More accurately, this formula yields blatant nepotism and begets plutocracy.
• “Social Justice” (for Cultural Marxism)
To commonists, “greedy” Americans are a cancer whose market-directed economies wreak chaos and instability. For the sake of “social justice,” producers must provide for non-producers—from each according to ability, to each according to his work and/or need. Coupled with invasion of privacy and wealth confiscation, commonism handily provides a steppingstone for bureaucratic burdens and regulations that quell rugged individualism and entrepreneurism. In the end, society is none the better for it.5
Face of Communism in the 21st Century
Today, the persistent weed of communism springs instinctively from these four stubborn seeds: (1) the Fabian Socialist Society, (2) the Frankfort Schools, (3) Antonio Gramsci, and (4) radical feminism—the first two of which were discussed in Part 1. In review, the Fabian Socialist Society picked up where Karl Marx left off by advancing social reform via evolution versus revolution. Next, a German school that initially consisted of dissident Marxists, the Frankfort School laid claim to public education and the media.
Enter, Antonio Gramsci (January 22, 1891 – April 27, 1937)
Italian writer, politician, political theorist, linguist, philosopher, and atheist, Antonio Gramsci was a founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Known as a highly original thinker within the Marxist tradition, Gramsci was characterized as the “biggest troublemaker of the world” by, first, creating chaos and, then, stepping in to resolve the problem.
To hasten revolution and thereby shape the destiny of rising generations, Gramsci purposed to infiltrate, sabotage and, then, destroy culture, morality, and religion through his influence in the universities, publications, the arts, entertainment, and churches.6
The Gramsci Model for affecting social change is no stranger to the White House. Having worked for Chicago communist Frank Marshall Davis, young Obama conformed himself to the model, as did his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Resulting from the 1992 split of the Communist Party in the USA, Committees of Correspondence, along with its sister organization, the Communist Party, supported Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.7
• Saul Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972)
A prominent Chicago radical in the 1930s, Saul Alinsky devoted his life to revolution against the American system he deemed oppressive and unjust by mobilizing community organizers to stir up things. Taking the best of Gramsci and the Fabian Socialists, Alinsky packaged his own strategy to destroy capitalism by overloading the system with unsustainable entitlements that accompany open borders.
Having interviewed Alinsky while attending Wellesley, Hillary Rodham wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories and, after graduating, was offered a job with Alinsky’s new training institute in Chicago. Although he never knew Alinsky personally, Barak Obama likewise became an ardent practitioner of Alinsky’s methodology. According to the Alinsky Model, deception is the most important method to create the world “as it should be.” 8
Betty Friedan (February 4, 1921 - February 4, 2006)
A staunch supporter of Stalin, Betty Friedan launched the Feminist Movement in America. In 1966 she co-founded and became the first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Purportedly to free female victims of male domination, she wrote The Feminist Mystique and, through it, promoted her communist goals.
Unfortunately, once the value of human life is invalidated (e.g., via “choice” campaigns for managed death and selective breeding options), and our moral strength as a nation is lost (by moral relativism and ensuing anarchy), freedom and free enterprise are left to rot in the wake of revolution. No matter. Following the 2006 death of Betty Friedan, Hillary Clinton suggested that we are not victims, but rather “beneficiaries of her vision." 9
Fundamental Transformation
On Election Eve 2008, Barack Obama noted: “We are five days away from fundamentally trans-forming the United States of America.” Thankfully, the true American dream is not over until it’s over—or until the proverbial fat lady sings. Though we’re hopefully not yet at the point of no return, it’s most assuredly late in the day. Armed with conviction that our values are worth upholding, this is our last chance to push back; and it’s not the Republicans or Wall Street who have the answers.
What Must Be Done?
Accept it or not, our only hope is in the God of creation. Nonetheless, our charge as Americans is to pick great leaders who honor our country and, then, hold those leaders accountable. We need dedicated, praying Christians to take the reigns, leaders who esteem and defend national sovereignty and personal freedom.
It’s been said that an organized minority will defeat the disorganized majority every time. By mobilizing a fully informed and engaged citizenry, we effectively put legs to our prayers. We must rise above evil and guide our children to do likewise. But, above all, we must humble ourselves, seek God’s face, and turn from our own wicked ways.10 Each American patriot must commit to be informed, take appropriate action, engage in prevailing prayer, and stand for godly values. Then, and only then, will we hear from the God of Heaven who, in turn, will heal and restore our land. 11
1. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary.
2. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
3. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Thomas.Quote.FFB1
4. Forty-five destructive goals taken from The Naked Communist (1958) by the late Willard Cleon Skousen, an American author, conservative American Constitutionalist, and faith-based political theorist:
• U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
• U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
• Illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
• Free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
• Long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
• American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
• Recognition of Red China and her admission to the U.N.
• Set up East- and West- Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
• Conferences to ban atomic tests so the United States suspends tests while negotiations are in progress.
• All Soviet satellites given individual representation in the U.N.
• The U.N. offered as the only hope for mankind. (If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.)
• Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
• Do away with all loyalty oaths.
• Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
• Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
• Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
• Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
• Gain control of all student newspapers.
• Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations under Communist attack.
• Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
• Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
• Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression; "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings; substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms."
• Control art critics and directors of art museums.
• Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy.”
• Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
• Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
• Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
• Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
• Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
• Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
• Eliminate all laws or procedures that interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
• Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
• Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
• Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
• Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
• Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders that no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
• Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation, and easy divorce.
• Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
• Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
• Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
• Internationalize the Panama Canal.
• Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci.
7. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
8. Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
9. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1328.
10. 2 Chronicles 7:14—“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
11. James 1:22—“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”
Part 2
A child of the revolutionary sixties, I witnessed firsthand the unprecedented social upheaval of that turbulent decade. Especially on college campuses, the counterculture gained momentum as more and more students “turned on, tuned in, and dropped out.”1 Along with other nations, the U.S. pushed hard for center-left social reform; and its impact was lasting.
Just ask Curtis Bower. Decades later in 1992, Bower was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley at a time when the Communist Party of America divided. Upon slipping in undercover to one of their meetings, Bowers learned of a highly developed agenda to infiltrate institutions so that, in the end, American families would be destroyed (via cohabitation, hijacked public education, the feminist movement); businesses would falter (via radical environmentalism); and our culture of religion and morality would collapse (via militant gay rights and hate-crimes legislation).2
Back from the Grave
Though the 1992 cast was new, the script was not. In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to the plan’s underbelly. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” 3 Far from crushed, America’s flourishing Communist Party of 1992 honed Thomas’ strategy by exploiting the obliging aftermath of the sixties revolution.
At its core, communism upholds damaging credos of rulers “from the grave” such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx, whose notions—“God is dead”; “man is animal” and “lives for the State,” respectively—serve to justify violence. Non-party members, called “useful idiots,” do the dirty work for party elitists and, once used to the full, these socialist “comrades” are likewise rubbed out. Genius strategy, don’t you think?
Bower thought so. Some fifteen years later, as Idaho State Representative, Bower recalled the Berkley meeting and observed that the agenda was advancing, as planned. Over time, both major political parties had moved left of center. Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all had served to advance Thomas’ strategy.4
Aware that when a country goes down, others—be it China, Russia, the EU, or radical Islamists — are poised to fill the gap, Bowers further understood that, if America fails economically, she’ll also go down militarily. And this will mark the end of global freedom for a very long time. In letters to newspapers, Representative Bowers sounded the alarm.4
Shrouded in Weasel Words
Well-informed Americans get it that communism bears responsibility for more mass murders than the combined number of deaths tallied in all modern wars. This alone renders the term unsavory. In response, savvy strategists work word-craft magic by replacing the Marxist lexicon with kinder, gentler euphemisms, more appropriately called “weasel words.”
As is the case with most small omnivores, weasels are known for cunning. Weasel words share this attribute—e.g., use of “saving the planet” (for earth servitude), “commonism” (for communism), “social justice” (for Cultural Marxism), and “the greater good” (for blatant nepotism).
• “Saving the Planet” (for Earth Servitude)
For example, when big government gains control of the distribution and use of energy, it’s poised to interfere in every aspect of life. Indeed, “environment” comes from a French word meaning “surroundings.” Hence, it speaks to “everythingism”—that is to say, government control of every aspect of life. Rather than expose an underlying power-grab agenda, progressives instead fabricate the more palatable, even noble pretense of “saving the planet.”
• “Commonism” (for Communism) and “the Greater Good” (for Blatant Nepotism)
The love child of global super-capitalism, when mated with old school communism, is popularly called “commonism.” By transforming private intellectual assets and nationally controlled natural resources into the global commons, commonism effectively weds the bourgeoisie and the working proletariat—allegedly for the greater good. More accurately, this formula yields blatant nepotism and begets plutocracy.
• “Social Justice” (for Cultural Marxism)
To commonists, “greedy” Americans are a cancer whose market-directed economies wreak chaos and instability. For the sake of “social justice,” producers must provide for non-producers—from each according to ability, to each according to his work and/or need. Coupled with invasion of privacy and wealth confiscation, commonism handily provides a steppingstone for bureaucratic burdens and regulations that quell rugged individualism and entrepreneurism. In the end, society is none the better for it.5
Face of Communism in the 21st Century
Today, the persistent weed of communism springs instinctively from these four stubborn seeds: (1) the Fabian Socialist Society, (2) the Frankfort Schools, (3) Antonio Gramsci, and (4) radical feminism—the first two of which were discussed in Part 1. In review, the Fabian Socialist Society picked up where Karl Marx left off by advancing social reform via evolution versus revolution. Next, a German school that initially consisted of dissident Marxists, the Frankfort School laid claim to public education and the media.
Enter, Antonio Gramsci (January 22, 1891 – April 27, 1937)
Italian writer, politician, political theorist, linguist, philosopher, and atheist, Antonio Gramsci was a founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Known as a highly original thinker within the Marxist tradition, Gramsci was characterized as the “biggest troublemaker of the world” by, first, creating chaos and, then, stepping in to resolve the problem.
To hasten revolution and thereby shape the destiny of rising generations, Gramsci purposed to infiltrate, sabotage and, then, destroy culture, morality, and religion through his influence in the universities, publications, the arts, entertainment, and churches.6
The Gramsci Model for affecting social change is no stranger to the White House. Having worked for Chicago communist Frank Marshall Davis, young Obama conformed himself to the model, as did his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Resulting from the 1992 split of the Communist Party in the USA, Committees of Correspondence, along with its sister organization, the Communist Party, supported Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.7
• Saul Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972)
A prominent Chicago radical in the 1930s, Saul Alinsky devoted his life to revolution against the American system he deemed oppressive and unjust by mobilizing community organizers to stir up things. Taking the best of Gramsci and the Fabian Socialists, Alinsky packaged his own strategy to destroy capitalism by overloading the system with unsustainable entitlements that accompany open borders.
Having interviewed Alinsky while attending Wellesley, Hillary Rodham wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories and, after graduating, was offered a job with Alinsky’s new training institute in Chicago. Although he never knew Alinsky personally, Barak Obama likewise became an ardent practitioner of Alinsky’s methodology. According to the Alinsky Model, deception is the most important method to create the world “as it should be.” 8
Betty Friedan (February 4, 1921 - February 4, 2006)
A staunch supporter of Stalin, Betty Friedan launched the Feminist Movement in America. In 1966 she co-founded and became the first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Purportedly to free female victims of male domination, she wrote The Feminist Mystique and, through it, promoted her communist goals.
Unfortunately, once the value of human life is invalidated (e.g., via “choice” campaigns for managed death and selective breeding options), and our moral strength as a nation is lost (by moral relativism and ensuing anarchy), freedom and free enterprise are left to rot in the wake of revolution. No matter. Following the 2006 death of Betty Friedan, Hillary Clinton suggested that we are not victims, but rather “beneficiaries of her vision." 9
Fundamental Transformation
On Election Eve 2008, Barack Obama noted: “We are five days away from fundamentally trans-forming the United States of America.” Thankfully, the true American dream is not over until it’s over—or until the proverbial fat lady sings. Though we’re hopefully not yet at the point of no return, it’s most assuredly late in the day. Armed with conviction that our values are worth upholding, this is our last chance to push back; and it’s not the Republicans or Wall Street who have the answers.
What Must Be Done?
Accept it or not, our only hope is in the God of creation. Nonetheless, our charge as Americans is to pick great leaders who honor our country and, then, hold those leaders accountable. We need dedicated, praying Christians to take the reigns, leaders who esteem and defend national sovereignty and personal freedom.
It’s been said that an organized minority will defeat the disorganized majority every time. By mobilizing a fully informed and engaged citizenry, we effectively put legs to our prayers. We must rise above evil and guide our children to do likewise. But, above all, we must humble ourselves, seek God’s face, and turn from our own wicked ways.10 Each American patriot must commit to be informed, take appropriate action, engage in prevailing prayer, and stand for godly values. Then, and only then, will we hear from the God of Heaven who, in turn, will heal and restore our land. 11
1. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary.
2. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
3. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Thomas.Quote.FFB1
4. Forty-five destructive goals taken from The Naked Communist (1958) by the late Willard Cleon Skousen, an American author, conservative American Constitutionalist, and faith-based political theorist:
• U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
• U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
• Illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
• Free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
• Long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
• American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
• Recognition of Red China and her admission to the U.N.
• Set up East- and West- Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
• Conferences to ban atomic tests so the United States suspends tests while negotiations are in progress.
• All Soviet satellites given individual representation in the U.N.
• The U.N. offered as the only hope for mankind. (If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.)
• Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
• Do away with all loyalty oaths.
• Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
• Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
• Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
• Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
• Gain control of all student newspapers.
• Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations under Communist attack.
• Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
• Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
• Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression; "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings; substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms."
• Control art critics and directors of art museums.
• Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy.”
• Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
• Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
• Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
• Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
• Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
• Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
• Eliminate all laws or procedures that interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
• Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
• Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
• Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
• Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
• Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders that no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
• Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation, and easy divorce.
• Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
• Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
• Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
• Internationalize the Panama Canal.
• Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci.
7. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
8. Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
9. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1328.
10. 2 Chronicles 7:14—“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
11. James 1:22—“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Recipe for Revolution
Recipe for Revolution: Mobilizing for Social Transformation
Part 1
As a young teenager, I witnessed the historic visit of Nikita Khrushchev to my mid-west hometown. At the time, our respective nations were embroiled in the Cold War. Distinguished as first secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, Khrushchev had famously insisted, “We will bury you”—of course, “not with a shovel”—but “[America’s] own working class will [do it].”1 While driven downtown in an open convertible, Khrushchev nodded and waved to a wary Iowan crowd that intentionally stonewalled fanfare typically afforded public figures.
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, many boomers heaved a shared sigh of relief. Khrushchev’s threats were proven toothless, the Cold War was history, and it was time to kiss and make up. Thereafter, the leader of the Free World looked Vladimir Putin in the eyes and, as a friend, discerned “his soul.” In doing so, President George W. Bush necessarily overlooked Putin’s KGB infamy.
Communism’s Dead; Case Closed
Decades later, there are more Communist Party members in the world than ever before, and over 1.5 billion today live under communism’s iron fist. Hence, the “mission accomplished” proclamation of 1989 is shown to have been unwarranted. Fact is, communism didn’t die with Karl Marx, nor did it collapse with the Berlin Wall; but there’s a price to pay for saying so. Progressives mock “conspiracy theorists” and accuse them of McCarthyism. Mere mention of this emotive term suggests “proof” that none can gainsay without reaping the scorn of enlightened folk who somehow know better.
Not So Fast, America!
Consider this: Technically speaking, communism is the final phase and goal of socialism—that is, “big government.” Significantly, there are no examples in history of big government that hasn’t abused its people. Even so, diehard partisans concede that, in the U.S., both major political parties enable it; and communism’s call for world revolution, workers’ democracy, equality, and “real” freedom lingers to this day.
Mobilizing for social transformation, communism boasts strong footholds in South Africa, South- and Central- Americas, Cuba, Viet Nam, Russia—even the European Union. Advanced by “progressives,” the end goal is global governance, core values for which are socialist at best, Marxist at worst.2
Without fail, the persistent weed of communism springs instinctively from these four stubborn seeds: (1) the Fabian Socialist Society, (2) the Frankfort Schools, (3) Antonio Gramsci, and (4) radical feminism.3
Fabian Socialist Society
Advancing social reform by evolution versus revolution, the Fabian Socialist Society picked up where Karl Marx left off. Ardent socialist George Bernard Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society and, in the furtherance of its causes, became an accomplished orator on behalf of equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, and promoting healthy lifestyles. Shaw was in favor of rescinding private ownership of productive land, and he vigorously supported Stalin. He also believed in Hitler’s eugenic dream to improve the human race through selective reproduction.4
SDS (Students for Democratic Society), Weathermen/ Weather Underground
Shrouded in the Hippie Movement, Students for a Democratic Society were activists representing the country's New Left. The organization developed and expanded rapidly in the mid-1960s before dissolving in 1969 at its last convention. In January of 2006, a new incarnation of SDS was founded and, by 2010, had grown to over 150 chapters around the United States.5
A faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weathermen (later known as the Weather Underground Organization) likewise originated in 1969. Its founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement," among others, to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism” and “a classless world under world communism."6
Now a professor of education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, SDS founder Bill Ayers “doesn’t regret” having set bombs to further the cause. Like Ayers, the founder of ACORN Wade Rathke is a disciple of Saul Alinsky (of Rules for Radicals fame).7 You may recall that working for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) was key to advancing President Obama’s political career.
Also involved with the SDS in his youth, the Reverend Jim Wallis is best known as founding editor of Sojourners magazine and the D.C.-based community of the same name; moreover, he serves President Obama as spiritual advisor. Wallis’ primary support from the progressive religious left champions “social justice,” arguably the latest, greatest buzzword for socialism, communism, and Marxism.
The Frankfort School9
A German school initially consisting of dissident Marxists, the Frankfort School serves as a sort of outpost for European Bolshevism in America. Father of Progressive Education, John Dewey established one such school—its emphasis, destruction of religion and morality.
To destroy the family is to destroy the nation, so then Frankfort enthusiasts plotted its demise in the 1930s by making America so corrupt that “it stinks.” The oft-repeated phrase, “Make Love, Not War,” originated in the Frankfort School of Cultural Marxism. Beyond systematic breakdown of traditional family relationships and values, the Frankfort School recommended (among other things) sex education (inclusive of homosexuality) and bias against churches, not to mention victims of crime.
With Dewey’s assistance, the Frankfort School set its sights on the media, along with education, to control and then dumb down both. Proponents advocated continual change (to create confusion), open borders and huge immigration (to blur national identity), and ever-increasing dependency on the Nanny State.
Today, the Frankfort School’s impact on American society is inescapable. By accessing the Internet and liberal media, young student activists are swayed to pit themselves against presumed-to-be bankrupt traditionalism—be it religion, the U.S. Constitution, or nuclear family. Given revisionist history as its catalyst, Marxism assumes center stage. Victimization theories effectively hook our youth; and hardcore action holds promise for global transformation to a just, peaceful, sustainable society bereft of national sovereignty, traditionalism, and free enterprise capitalism.10
In reality, a mere mirage attracts and then points gullible idealists down the proverbial “yellow brick road” leading to Shangri-La. Problem is, “utopia” literally means “no place,” and paradise it ain’t.
More to follow in Part 2.
1. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=we+will+bury+you+nikita+kruschev&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8.
2. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. (U.S.: Tribeca Books, 2011).
3. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
4. Ted Flynn. “Fabians.” Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World. (Herndon: MaxKol Communications, Inc, 2000): 2,4-5,8,80-81,117,132,218,304,376,383,400.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization).
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground.
7. Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
8. Marvin Olasky. “Let’s Admit Who We Are.” (World, 17 July 2010): 80. See also World, 14 March 2009: 57-58; 29 August 2009: 76; 10 April 2010: 88; 17 July 2010: 88; 11 http://agendadocumentary.com: Trevor Loudon.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School.
10. See also: Debra Rae. “Rousing Young Visionaries for Radical Social Change.” (News with Views, 4 June 2006): http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra6.htm.
Part 1
As a young teenager, I witnessed the historic visit of Nikita Khrushchev to my mid-west hometown. At the time, our respective nations were embroiled in the Cold War. Distinguished as first secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, Khrushchev had famously insisted, “We will bury you”—of course, “not with a shovel”—but “[America’s] own working class will [do it].”1 While driven downtown in an open convertible, Khrushchev nodded and waved to a wary Iowan crowd that intentionally stonewalled fanfare typically afforded public figures.
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, many boomers heaved a shared sigh of relief. Khrushchev’s threats were proven toothless, the Cold War was history, and it was time to kiss and make up. Thereafter, the leader of the Free World looked Vladimir Putin in the eyes and, as a friend, discerned “his soul.” In doing so, President George W. Bush necessarily overlooked Putin’s KGB infamy.
Communism’s Dead; Case Closed
Decades later, there are more Communist Party members in the world than ever before, and over 1.5 billion today live under communism’s iron fist. Hence, the “mission accomplished” proclamation of 1989 is shown to have been unwarranted. Fact is, communism didn’t die with Karl Marx, nor did it collapse with the Berlin Wall; but there’s a price to pay for saying so. Progressives mock “conspiracy theorists” and accuse them of McCarthyism. Mere mention of this emotive term suggests “proof” that none can gainsay without reaping the scorn of enlightened folk who somehow know better.
Not So Fast, America!
Consider this: Technically speaking, communism is the final phase and goal of socialism—that is, “big government.” Significantly, there are no examples in history of big government that hasn’t abused its people. Even so, diehard partisans concede that, in the U.S., both major political parties enable it; and communism’s call for world revolution, workers’ democracy, equality, and “real” freedom lingers to this day.
Mobilizing for social transformation, communism boasts strong footholds in South Africa, South- and Central- Americas, Cuba, Viet Nam, Russia—even the European Union. Advanced by “progressives,” the end goal is global governance, core values for which are socialist at best, Marxist at worst.2
Without fail, the persistent weed of communism springs instinctively from these four stubborn seeds: (1) the Fabian Socialist Society, (2) the Frankfort Schools, (3) Antonio Gramsci, and (4) radical feminism.3
Fabian Socialist Society
Advancing social reform by evolution versus revolution, the Fabian Socialist Society picked up where Karl Marx left off. Ardent socialist George Bernard Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society and, in the furtherance of its causes, became an accomplished orator on behalf of equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, and promoting healthy lifestyles. Shaw was in favor of rescinding private ownership of productive land, and he vigorously supported Stalin. He also believed in Hitler’s eugenic dream to improve the human race through selective reproduction.4
SDS (Students for Democratic Society), Weathermen/ Weather Underground
Shrouded in the Hippie Movement, Students for a Democratic Society were activists representing the country's New Left. The organization developed and expanded rapidly in the mid-1960s before dissolving in 1969 at its last convention. In January of 2006, a new incarnation of SDS was founded and, by 2010, had grown to over 150 chapters around the United States.5
A faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weathermen (later known as the Weather Underground Organization) likewise originated in 1969. Its founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement," among others, to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism” and “a classless world under world communism."6
Now a professor of education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, SDS founder Bill Ayers “doesn’t regret” having set bombs to further the cause. Like Ayers, the founder of ACORN Wade Rathke is a disciple of Saul Alinsky (of Rules for Radicals fame).7 You may recall that working for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) was key to advancing President Obama’s political career.
Also involved with the SDS in his youth, the Reverend Jim Wallis is best known as founding editor of Sojourners magazine and the D.C.-based community of the same name; moreover, he serves President Obama as spiritual advisor. Wallis’ primary support from the progressive religious left champions “social justice,” arguably the latest, greatest buzzword for socialism, communism, and Marxism.
The Frankfort School9
A German school initially consisting of dissident Marxists, the Frankfort School serves as a sort of outpost for European Bolshevism in America. Father of Progressive Education, John Dewey established one such school—its emphasis, destruction of religion and morality.
To destroy the family is to destroy the nation, so then Frankfort enthusiasts plotted its demise in the 1930s by making America so corrupt that “it stinks.” The oft-repeated phrase, “Make Love, Not War,” originated in the Frankfort School of Cultural Marxism. Beyond systematic breakdown of traditional family relationships and values, the Frankfort School recommended (among other things) sex education (inclusive of homosexuality) and bias against churches, not to mention victims of crime.
With Dewey’s assistance, the Frankfort School set its sights on the media, along with education, to control and then dumb down both. Proponents advocated continual change (to create confusion), open borders and huge immigration (to blur national identity), and ever-increasing dependency on the Nanny State.
Today, the Frankfort School’s impact on American society is inescapable. By accessing the Internet and liberal media, young student activists are swayed to pit themselves against presumed-to-be bankrupt traditionalism—be it religion, the U.S. Constitution, or nuclear family. Given revisionist history as its catalyst, Marxism assumes center stage. Victimization theories effectively hook our youth; and hardcore action holds promise for global transformation to a just, peaceful, sustainable society bereft of national sovereignty, traditionalism, and free enterprise capitalism.10
In reality, a mere mirage attracts and then points gullible idealists down the proverbial “yellow brick road” leading to Shangri-La. Problem is, “utopia” literally means “no place,” and paradise it ain’t.
More to follow in Part 2.
1. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=we+will+bury+you+nikita+kruschev&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8.
2. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. (U.S.: Tribeca Books, 2011).
3. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
4. Ted Flynn. “Fabians.” Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World. (Herndon: MaxKol Communications, Inc, 2000): 2,4-5,8,80-81,117,132,218,304,376,383,400.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization).
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground.
7. Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
8. Marvin Olasky. “Let’s Admit Who We Are.” (World, 17 July 2010): 80. See also World, 14 March 2009: 57-58; 29 August 2009: 76; 10 April 2010: 88; 17 July 2010: 88; 11 http://agendadocumentary.com: Trevor Loudon.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School.
10. See also: Debra Rae. “Rousing Young Visionaries for Radical Social Change.” (News with Views, 4 June 2006): http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra6.htm.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The WOW Factor
The WOW Factor: Watchmen on the Wall for Such a Time as This
Remember the Alamo, Part 2
Debra Rae
From very early history to modern times, city walls served as fortifications, if not fortresses. The term, “fortification,” is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make") and speaks to “making strong” one’s defense, specifically from enemy intrusion. Able to see in the distance, watchmen on city walls forewarned fellows of impending danger, thereby inspiring appropriate preparations and timely action.
Vestiges of ancient defenses remain even today; however, one need not travel to Persepolis in Iran to find an example. Texas will do just fine. There, a former Spanish religious outpost converted to a makeshift fort, the Alamo, recently marked the anniversary of its infamous fall in 1836. It was then that, for over 13 days, 186 patriots withstood Santa Anna’s 4,000 troops.
Perhaps the most notorious failure of a well-known fort, the Alamo had no chance of prevailing. Indeed, Santa Anna described her as an "irregular fortification hardly worthy of the name." The Alamo was woefully undermanned, under-provisioned, and poorly commanded. Significantly, it was not her stouthearted defenders, but rather avoidable defense flaws that sealed her doom.1
As mentioned above, a fortification “makes strong.” Just how strong is paramount. You see, while the Alamo was designed to withstand an attack by native tribes, it could not weather an artillery-equipped army. Even so, Texas engineer Green B. Jameson boasted to army commander Sam Houston that, given artillery at their disposal, they could "whip [the enemy] ten to one.”2
Defenses Compromised
From a Bible point of view, believers are commanded to “war a good warfare.”3 Their charge is to be fully armored up,4 ever vigilant,5 and “instant in season and out.”6 While these mandates apply to spiritual warfare, they likewise speak to national defense. God may well have been “on their side,” as Alamo patriots claimed; however, it’s conceivable that, had proactive steps been taken, the defenders’ fate might have been different.
In like manner, America may boast that “God is on her side,” and that her superior defenses are impenetrable; but in compromising her borders, she falls short of defending herself against very real threats—and this time, not just from Mexico! According to a recently released government report, less than one percent of the 4,000-mile stretch along the U.S.-Canadian border is adequately protected.
Senator Joe Lieberman warns that the northern border from Washington State to Maine provides “easy passage into America by extremists, terrorists, and criminals whose purpose clearly is to harm the American people.” It is, in fact, a higher risk to public safety than its counterpart to the far south. Today, Canada harbors more Islamic extremist groups than does Mexico.7
Promoting open borders subjected to a network of global bureaucracies renders our union all the more vulnerable. Nonetheless, a planned, ten-lane international corridor will be the first leg of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway, boasting a tri-national database under joint military command. With no signed agreements or congressional oversight, our nation’s merged future with Canada and Mexico will allow freer flow of people, goods, and capital—drugs, terrorists, and human traffickers included.8
Wily Warfare
Rather than mobilize a professional, highly disciplined military force, mostly volunteers defended the Alamo. Alamo defenders did not wear uniforms. For example, Davy Crockett was more a sharpshooter-hunter and storyteller than he was a soldier. As such, his standard attire was that of a frontiersman.
Similarly, Americans too often fail to don the “whole armor of God” without which they open our nation to wiles of her enemies.9 Case in point: Former governor of Colorado Dick Lamm fleshed out what he recognized as a genius strategy for expediting America’s demise.10 Without the “shield of faith” properly positioned, America is catching the proverbial arrows of this clever scheme.
It goes like this: To spark tension and turmoil, one first must turn America into a bi- or multi-lingual and bicultural country. Next, to level the playing field, one must invent multiculturalism and, then, celebrate diversity over unity. No more the “melting pot,” America establishes her metaphoric identity with the “salad bowl,” components for which are distinguished by the hyphenated identity, bilingual education, and radical historical revisionism.
Some surmise that under the gargantuan burden of entitlement, even for lawbreakers, America’s already begun her downward descent. Once the rate of immigration overtakes assimilation, chaos will be unavoidable. That said, to strengthen her defense from enemies within and without, America mustn’t remain undermanned, under-provisioned, underprepared, distracted, poorly commanded, and out-strategized. Otherwise, she’ll share the Alamo’s fate.
Undermanned and Under-provisioned
Though the Texan force grew slightly with the arrival of reinforcements led by James Bowie and William B. Travis, Sam Houston could not spare the number of men needed to mount a successful defense. By January 1836, fewer than 100 soldiers remained; and the sick and wounded among them were unable to fight.
American patriot-frontiersmen and heroes are as few and far between today as were defenders of the Alamo. Ever growing numbers of “victims” outnumber stalwartly rugged, American individualists. Case in point: Recent union rallies whereby government-employed activists in Wisconsin pooh-poohed budget-repair bills, bemoaned the plight of public workers, and affirmed their right to lobby for more government spending at taxpayers’ expense. Forced dues to unions are tantamount to taxpayer subsidies to do just that, but never mind.
Nor does it matter that, given our struggling economy, sometimes lavish, taxpayer-funded bennies are unsustainable. Even “undocumented workers”—i.e., “illegals”—feel entitled to jobs and all the rights and privileges of American citizens. “Victims” look to corporations and America’s wealthiest citizens to bear the brunt of their demands—if necessary, under threat of interrupted vital services.11
Forget that our nation is collapsing under the federal deficit, and Washington can’t find a nickel to cut from the budget. “Victim” entitlements take priority. For example, compliments of American taxpayers (who themselves struggle to pay bills), a government program called “Lifeline Benefits” provides a free SafeLink Wireless cell phone coupled with assurance that “income-eligible consumers” will get no bills and no contracts ever.” 12
More among us would do well to heed the words of Texas Colonel Travis. "Our business,” he explained, “is not to make a fruitless effort to save our lives, but to choose the manner of our death." His was a call to sacrifice. With that, Travis drew his sword and slowly marked a line in the sand. "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line."13
Unlike defenders of the Alamo, too many among us elect to join French soldier of fortune, Louis Moses Rose who, for self-interest, refused Travis’ challenge.
Underprepared and Distracted
Unfortunately, the Texan government was in turmoil and unable to provide much assistance to Alamo defenders. Struggling to secure men and supplies, Texas settlers were unprepared for a long campaign.
Nonetheless, unaware of the Mexican army's proximity, the majority of the Alamo garrison joined Béxar residents at a fiesta. Similarly, too many today turn deaf ears to watchmen’s warnings.14 Packed agendas propelled by time-gobbling social media, obsession for entertainment, and “cares of life” distract and delude clear thinking.15 Wartime was not (and is not) the best time to throw a party. But party, they did.
Poorly Commanded
No one was entirely certain who actually was in charge. Four different men claimed to have been given command over the entire army. When appointed sole commander of all troops, Sam Houston journeyed to Gonzales to take command of the 400 volunteers who were still waiting for Colonel James Fannin to lead them to the Alamo. Unbeknownst to them, Fannin had aborted the mission of mobilizing men, artillery, and supplies for the Alamo. Dissent and confusion abounded when Fannin, his officers, and enlisted men blamed one another for lack of follow through.
When Neill left the Alamo to recruit additional reinforcements and to gather supplies, he transferred command to Travis, the garrison’s highest-ranking regular army officer. Although unconvinced by the reports of the Mexican army's imminent arrival, Travis stationed a soldier in the San Fernando church bell tower—the highest location in town—to watch for signs of an approaching force. Even then, few arrangements were made in preparation for a potential siege in exceedingly cold temperatures.
To complicate matters, volunteers within the garrison refused to accept Travis as their leader. Instead, they elected Bowie as their commander because he had a reputation as a fierce fighter. Unfortunately, Bowie celebrated his appointment by getting very intoxicated and, then, creating havoc in Béxar. Moreover, Houston's orders to Bowie were vague; and historians disagree on their intent.
To mitigate ill feelings due to Bowie’s drunkenness, he agreed to share the command with Travis; however, once Bowie succumbed to illness, Travis assumed sole command of the garrison. Even as the Alamo suffered a dirge of rank-and-file, proactive leadership coupled with neglect, misunderstandings, dissention, and bickering, so it is with present-day America. Without timely intervention, the probable outcome will be every bit as damaging.16
Out-strategized
Santa Anna opportunistically timed their final assault for when Texans fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many had gotten since onset of the siege.17 The makeshift north wall of the Alamo contained many gaps and toeholds, and few defenders guarded the west-wall gun ports. As enemy troops massed against Alamo walls, Texans were forced lean over them while shooting. This further exposed defenders to Mexican fire. In the heat of battle, Texans neglected to spike their cannon before retreating to fortified barracks, where remaining defenders were ensconced and, in the end, overcome.
As a nation, we, too, are asleep at the wheel. Entangled with affairs of this life and embroiled in contentious partisanship,18 we have compromised our “shield and buckler” of truth for the god of political correctness.19 More often than not, sobriety and vigilance evade us.20 As a result, we have compromised God’s protective wall of fire round about us and forfeited His glory in our midst.21
With God’s help, we can take back the reigns of our nation. If there’s still some fight in us, we’d best cross Travis’ line in the sand, forego fruitless efforts to save our own lives, and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to fortify our borders and our ranks within—in other words: Remember the Alamo. Otherwise, we’re destined to obsolescence, if not extinction.
1. http://thealamo.org/battle/words.php.
2. Small, Melvin and J. David Singer. Resort to Arms: International and civil Wars 1816–1980 and Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis, New York: New York University Press, 1990.
3. 1 Timothy 6:12.
4. Ephesians 6:13.
5. 1 Peter 5:8.
6. 2 Timothy 4:2.
7. Hotakainen, Rob (2011), McClatchy Newspapers, Seattle, WA: The Seattle Times Nation & World Report, A2 News.
8. http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/nafta_superhighway_coming_through.htm.
9. Ephesians 6:13.
10. http://www.safehaven.com/article/4837/how-to-destroy-america.
11. Olasky, Marvin. Purim in Wisconsin. Asheville, NC: World, 12 March 2011.
12. https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx.
13. http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/Line-in-the-Sand-Alamo-History.htm; Hardin, Stephen L. (1994), Texan Iliad, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, ISBN 0-292-73086-1, p. 111.
14. Luke 8:4.
15. Matthew 13:22.
16. Todish, Timothy J.; Todish, Terry; Spring, Ted (1998), Alamo Sourcebook, 1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution, Austin, TX: Eakin Press, ISBN 978-1-57168-152-2, p. 29, 30-31.
17. Judges 16:20.
18. 2 Timothy 2:4.
19. Psalm 91:4.
20. 1 Peter 5:8.
21. Zechariah 2:5.
Remember the Alamo, Part 2
Debra Rae
From very early history to modern times, city walls served as fortifications, if not fortresses. The term, “fortification,” is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make") and speaks to “making strong” one’s defense, specifically from enemy intrusion. Able to see in the distance, watchmen on city walls forewarned fellows of impending danger, thereby inspiring appropriate preparations and timely action.
Vestiges of ancient defenses remain even today; however, one need not travel to Persepolis in Iran to find an example. Texas will do just fine. There, a former Spanish religious outpost converted to a makeshift fort, the Alamo, recently marked the anniversary of its infamous fall in 1836. It was then that, for over 13 days, 186 patriots withstood Santa Anna’s 4,000 troops.
Perhaps the most notorious failure of a well-known fort, the Alamo had no chance of prevailing. Indeed, Santa Anna described her as an "irregular fortification hardly worthy of the name." The Alamo was woefully undermanned, under-provisioned, and poorly commanded. Significantly, it was not her stouthearted defenders, but rather avoidable defense flaws that sealed her doom.1
As mentioned above, a fortification “makes strong.” Just how strong is paramount. You see, while the Alamo was designed to withstand an attack by native tribes, it could not weather an artillery-equipped army. Even so, Texas engineer Green B. Jameson boasted to army commander Sam Houston that, given artillery at their disposal, they could "whip [the enemy] ten to one.”2
Defenses Compromised
From a Bible point of view, believers are commanded to “war a good warfare.”3 Their charge is to be fully armored up,4 ever vigilant,5 and “instant in season and out.”6 While these mandates apply to spiritual warfare, they likewise speak to national defense. God may well have been “on their side,” as Alamo patriots claimed; however, it’s conceivable that, had proactive steps been taken, the defenders’ fate might have been different.
In like manner, America may boast that “God is on her side,” and that her superior defenses are impenetrable; but in compromising her borders, she falls short of defending herself against very real threats—and this time, not just from Mexico! According to a recently released government report, less than one percent of the 4,000-mile stretch along the U.S.-Canadian border is adequately protected.
Senator Joe Lieberman warns that the northern border from Washington State to Maine provides “easy passage into America by extremists, terrorists, and criminals whose purpose clearly is to harm the American people.” It is, in fact, a higher risk to public safety than its counterpart to the far south. Today, Canada harbors more Islamic extremist groups than does Mexico.7
Promoting open borders subjected to a network of global bureaucracies renders our union all the more vulnerable. Nonetheless, a planned, ten-lane international corridor will be the first leg of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway, boasting a tri-national database under joint military command. With no signed agreements or congressional oversight, our nation’s merged future with Canada and Mexico will allow freer flow of people, goods, and capital—drugs, terrorists, and human traffickers included.8
Wily Warfare
Rather than mobilize a professional, highly disciplined military force, mostly volunteers defended the Alamo. Alamo defenders did not wear uniforms. For example, Davy Crockett was more a sharpshooter-hunter and storyteller than he was a soldier. As such, his standard attire was that of a frontiersman.
Similarly, Americans too often fail to don the “whole armor of God” without which they open our nation to wiles of her enemies.9 Case in point: Former governor of Colorado Dick Lamm fleshed out what he recognized as a genius strategy for expediting America’s demise.10 Without the “shield of faith” properly positioned, America is catching the proverbial arrows of this clever scheme.
It goes like this: To spark tension and turmoil, one first must turn America into a bi- or multi-lingual and bicultural country. Next, to level the playing field, one must invent multiculturalism and, then, celebrate diversity over unity. No more the “melting pot,” America establishes her metaphoric identity with the “salad bowl,” components for which are distinguished by the hyphenated identity, bilingual education, and radical historical revisionism.
Some surmise that under the gargantuan burden of entitlement, even for lawbreakers, America’s already begun her downward descent. Once the rate of immigration overtakes assimilation, chaos will be unavoidable. That said, to strengthen her defense from enemies within and without, America mustn’t remain undermanned, under-provisioned, underprepared, distracted, poorly commanded, and out-strategized. Otherwise, she’ll share the Alamo’s fate.
Undermanned and Under-provisioned
Though the Texan force grew slightly with the arrival of reinforcements led by James Bowie and William B. Travis, Sam Houston could not spare the number of men needed to mount a successful defense. By January 1836, fewer than 100 soldiers remained; and the sick and wounded among them were unable to fight.
American patriot-frontiersmen and heroes are as few and far between today as were defenders of the Alamo. Ever growing numbers of “victims” outnumber stalwartly rugged, American individualists. Case in point: Recent union rallies whereby government-employed activists in Wisconsin pooh-poohed budget-repair bills, bemoaned the plight of public workers, and affirmed their right to lobby for more government spending at taxpayers’ expense. Forced dues to unions are tantamount to taxpayer subsidies to do just that, but never mind.
Nor does it matter that, given our struggling economy, sometimes lavish, taxpayer-funded bennies are unsustainable. Even “undocumented workers”—i.e., “illegals”—feel entitled to jobs and all the rights and privileges of American citizens. “Victims” look to corporations and America’s wealthiest citizens to bear the brunt of their demands—if necessary, under threat of interrupted vital services.11
Forget that our nation is collapsing under the federal deficit, and Washington can’t find a nickel to cut from the budget. “Victim” entitlements take priority. For example, compliments of American taxpayers (who themselves struggle to pay bills), a government program called “Lifeline Benefits” provides a free SafeLink Wireless cell phone coupled with assurance that “income-eligible consumers” will get no bills and no contracts ever.” 12
More among us would do well to heed the words of Texas Colonel Travis. "Our business,” he explained, “is not to make a fruitless effort to save our lives, but to choose the manner of our death." His was a call to sacrifice. With that, Travis drew his sword and slowly marked a line in the sand. "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line."13
Unlike defenders of the Alamo, too many among us elect to join French soldier of fortune, Louis Moses Rose who, for self-interest, refused Travis’ challenge.
Underprepared and Distracted
Unfortunately, the Texan government was in turmoil and unable to provide much assistance to Alamo defenders. Struggling to secure men and supplies, Texas settlers were unprepared for a long campaign.
Nonetheless, unaware of the Mexican army's proximity, the majority of the Alamo garrison joined Béxar residents at a fiesta. Similarly, too many today turn deaf ears to watchmen’s warnings.14 Packed agendas propelled by time-gobbling social media, obsession for entertainment, and “cares of life” distract and delude clear thinking.15 Wartime was not (and is not) the best time to throw a party. But party, they did.
Poorly Commanded
No one was entirely certain who actually was in charge. Four different men claimed to have been given command over the entire army. When appointed sole commander of all troops, Sam Houston journeyed to Gonzales to take command of the 400 volunteers who were still waiting for Colonel James Fannin to lead them to the Alamo. Unbeknownst to them, Fannin had aborted the mission of mobilizing men, artillery, and supplies for the Alamo. Dissent and confusion abounded when Fannin, his officers, and enlisted men blamed one another for lack of follow through.
When Neill left the Alamo to recruit additional reinforcements and to gather supplies, he transferred command to Travis, the garrison’s highest-ranking regular army officer. Although unconvinced by the reports of the Mexican army's imminent arrival, Travis stationed a soldier in the San Fernando church bell tower—the highest location in town—to watch for signs of an approaching force. Even then, few arrangements were made in preparation for a potential siege in exceedingly cold temperatures.
To complicate matters, volunteers within the garrison refused to accept Travis as their leader. Instead, they elected Bowie as their commander because he had a reputation as a fierce fighter. Unfortunately, Bowie celebrated his appointment by getting very intoxicated and, then, creating havoc in Béxar. Moreover, Houston's orders to Bowie were vague; and historians disagree on their intent.
To mitigate ill feelings due to Bowie’s drunkenness, he agreed to share the command with Travis; however, once Bowie succumbed to illness, Travis assumed sole command of the garrison. Even as the Alamo suffered a dirge of rank-and-file, proactive leadership coupled with neglect, misunderstandings, dissention, and bickering, so it is with present-day America. Without timely intervention, the probable outcome will be every bit as damaging.16
Out-strategized
Santa Anna opportunistically timed their final assault for when Texans fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many had gotten since onset of the siege.17 The makeshift north wall of the Alamo contained many gaps and toeholds, and few defenders guarded the west-wall gun ports. As enemy troops massed against Alamo walls, Texans were forced lean over them while shooting. This further exposed defenders to Mexican fire. In the heat of battle, Texans neglected to spike their cannon before retreating to fortified barracks, where remaining defenders were ensconced and, in the end, overcome.
As a nation, we, too, are asleep at the wheel. Entangled with affairs of this life and embroiled in contentious partisanship,18 we have compromised our “shield and buckler” of truth for the god of political correctness.19 More often than not, sobriety and vigilance evade us.20 As a result, we have compromised God’s protective wall of fire round about us and forfeited His glory in our midst.21
With God’s help, we can take back the reigns of our nation. If there’s still some fight in us, we’d best cross Travis’ line in the sand, forego fruitless efforts to save our own lives, and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to fortify our borders and our ranks within—in other words: Remember the Alamo. Otherwise, we’re destined to obsolescence, if not extinction.
1. http://thealamo.org/battle/words.php.
2. Small, Melvin and J. David Singer. Resort to Arms: International and civil Wars 1816–1980 and Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis, New York: New York University Press, 1990.
3. 1 Timothy 6:12.
4. Ephesians 6:13.
5. 1 Peter 5:8.
6. 2 Timothy 4:2.
7. Hotakainen, Rob (2011), McClatchy Newspapers, Seattle, WA: The Seattle Times Nation & World Report, A2 News.
8. http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/nafta_superhighway_coming_through.htm.
9. Ephesians 6:13.
10. http://www.safehaven.com/article/4837/how-to-destroy-america.
11. Olasky, Marvin. Purim in Wisconsin. Asheville, NC: World, 12 March 2011.
12. https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx.
13. http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/Line-in-the-Sand-Alamo-History.htm; Hardin, Stephen L. (1994), Texan Iliad, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, ISBN 0-292-73086-1, p. 111.
14. Luke 8:4.
15. Matthew 13:22.
16. Todish, Timothy J.; Todish, Terry; Spring, Ted (1998), Alamo Sourcebook, 1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution, Austin, TX: Eakin Press, ISBN 978-1-57168-152-2, p. 29, 30-31.
17. Judges 16:20.
18. 2 Timothy 2:4.
19. Psalm 91:4.
20. 1 Peter 5:8.
21. Zechariah 2:5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
