Hidden Agendas

Day before yesterday, President Trump met with law officers on Long Island. He spoke about the brutal killings perpetrated by a gang known as MS 13, and encouraged tough enforcement of the law. And there were protests. His speech, to which they were not invited (it was for law officers only), was claimed by the protesters to be a justification of his immigration policy which would exclude undocumented aliens, especially criminals, a group to which most MS 13 members belonged. The President, proclaimed the demonstrators, should be acting on educational and social programs. Those programs may have merit, but they had nothing to do with the subject of the speech. And the problems they would address existed long before President Trump took office, but those involved didn't provoke the same kind of protest marches. Their real agenda, this time, had nothing to do with education but was an anti-Trump rally.

In the past few years there have been several protests and riots focused on the killing of blacks by police. “Black Lives Matter.” That was the message and the justification for the protests. But it's clear that the killing of blacks was irrelevant, since many times the number of those they cite are struck down in street violence and warfare in the communities, yet there are no protests or riots when that happens. Their agenda was actually resistance to the police and to authority in general, and they had neither knowledge, nor concern about the particular black individuals killed. They really don't matter, even if they're a useful tool for getting adherents.

And there are loud protests of the death penalty whenever its use is scheduled, although the same defenders of life don't speak out for defense of innocent fetuses when their lives are threatened by abortion. Life and death are not the issues. But a penalty imposed by the representatives they elected is. They oppose our laws, our government, and its officials, and the death penalty is their virtuous stalking horse.

There are other examples of the same problem every day. Protesters take advantage of current problems to oppose our government, to get publicity for their cause, or to incite violence. They take advantage of high profile situations to promote their own causes and to attract additional followers. And to vent their justified or unjustified rage.

That is the way it often is with mass movements. “Squeaky wheels” have an opportunity to stir up support for their cause with little consideration of the facts or of their relevance to the message advanced. And there are many individuals looking for a cause who don't analyze the words or implications of the movement's organizers – those who are seeking their support. Bodies, noise, and political influence are what the leaders look for, and “useful idiots” are of great advantage in promoting their causes.

I don't mean to say that I oppose free speech. The Constitution guarantees that right, and I am happy that we have it. Everyone and every group, including the ones I mentioned (but much more numerous), has the right and, the freedom to speak freely and openly, and to promote whatever message seems appropriate to the situation and their views. There are limitations, however, designed to prevent harm to others. We cannot incite riots or violence; we cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater (although Abbie Hoffman maintained that “Free speech means the right to shout 'theater' in a crowded fire”). But equally important, though not covered by law, is the obligation to say what we mean, not for ideologues to cloak their ideas in some motto that will attract attention, even if it isn't the message that their actions convey to those aware of them. Truth will strengthen our democracy. Hypocrisy and hidden agendas will not.

How can we stop such subterfuge? We can't, except by listening, and analyzing their claims and goals. We're faced by many with agendas that are more palatable when they're supported by some virtuous (even if intentionally misleading) statements, and there are many people looking for a cause to support.

The anti-Trump protesters mentioned above clamored for greater attention to education, and they were right. But the education most in need of strengthening is education in critical analysis of what publicity hunters seek and what the media are eager to promote. The “supporters” of education had less interest in it, or in stopping murders like those perpetrated by MS 13, than in fomenting anger against our government and its leader. That should have been obvious to all who listened. Those who came to support educational and social programs, even if they had not done so when the same problems existed in the past, were simply statistics generated by protest organizers, and faces to appear in the media in favor of their cause.

And their cause was not education.

The Never-ending Middle East Conflict

I'd love to see an end to the Middle East conflict before I die. But I probably won't. No matter what Israel concedes, there will be new demands from jihadist groups, and the governments with which Israel negotiates won't accept any peace treaty. Even if they do, there is always the loophole of Taqiyya, which sanctions lying by Muslims, making such a treaty suspect.

We can hope the conflict will end in one or two generations, but I suspect that such a wish is unjustifiably optimistic. It's likely that those who have already been infected will hang on for a long time, and that they'll retain their hatred and teach it to their own children. So I can only hope that before the Messiah comes, peace will come. But I am not sanguine.

For the reason that the dispute will persist is that it is religious. And since religion is, by definition, not rational, neither is the hatred. For many centuries anti-Semitism has been largely the domain of Christians. And they created a mythology around it, charging, among other things, that the Jews killed Christian children, caused diseases like the black plague to obliterate the Christians, and opposed Christianity itself, primarily by killing Jesus. They were children of Satan. The Muslims took over the hatred of Jews, claiming the Jews (now Israelis) killed Muslim children, caused diseases like AIDS that were aimed at Muslims, and opposed Islam by stealing their land. They are children of pigs and monkeys. There is a long history of anti-Semitism, and subsequently “anti-Zionism,” which still exists and is becoming stronger. As Santayana said (in,“The Life of Reason,” 1905-1906)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

For a good part of his life Muhammad had a favorable opinion of the Jews (“[T]he earliest verses of the Qur[']an were largely sympathetic to Jews. Mohammed [sic] admired them as monotheists and saw them as natural adherents to the new faith” (Wikipedia, citing Bernard Lewis). Muhammad “admired them as monotheists and saw them as natural adherents to the new faith,” viewing them as the favored of G-d (Allah), but he later cursed them. It was on this later enmity that Muslim commentators built, and their hatred persists. For this reason they will continue irrationally to seek the destruction of the Jews irrespective of what they are offered. That's the goal. And they will continue to do so unless they are taught that it is their religious obligation to abandon this hostility.

But that result will be long in coming. Needed is a change in mentality of the Islamic politicians and clergy, and in the content of the schoolbooks used by Arab and Islamic children. And in the indoctrination on TV and elsewhere. It will take pressure from around the world to effectuate this but, sadly, the world has heard the indoctrination so often itself that it has learned to accept and parrot the Islamic public relations lines. Dripping water, even though the amounts seem small, eventually erodes rock. The big lie. Repeat it often enough … Even “moderate” Israeli Muslims view Israel as a belonging to them. (How would they do without the advantages of Israeli society? They receive more benefits from Israel than do their brothers under Islamic rule, and most would prefer not to give up those advantages.)

So the nations will continue to favor the Muslims and their demands. It will aid them in getting what they want by political means since they have failed militarily.

But they have not learned from history. What starts out affecting the Jews will ultimately affect others. It's happened before. Christians have already suffered (as have many Muslims). In addition, random attacks will affect whoever is around. “Islam is overtly hostile towards other religions! More importantly, Islam is overtly hostile to non-Islamic governments; we can witness it in the subterranean wars that Muslims are currently waging against the world’s Liberal Democracies.” (From “Islam Watch – Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims” – 17 May, 2009.) Total destruction of an enemy is difficult, but they will do their best to kill all the Jews, and then the others.

What are the possible outcomes? Total victory for Islam is certainly one of them. There are over 2.118 billion Muslims in the world. That's 29 percent of the world's population and the percentage is slowly increasing. Their greatest enemies at the moment are other Muslims, since sectarian differences are responsible for more deaths among them than are caused by any non-Muslim group. Indeed, infighting among Muslim's could eventually cause more problems for them than anything else.

Another possibility is a preemptive war, originating in Israel or the United States. The problem, however, is that the world of Islam is wide, and the choice of a target will be difficult. They will all, for example, protest any attack on Iran. And, as I noted earlier, the total destruction of an enemy is difficult – especially when it involves such a large part of the world's population. Although the large majority of Muslims are not obsessed about war against the West, their clerics will continue to indoctrinate them concerning its virtue.

Perhaps there will be an end to the teaching of hatred. It would be a miracle, but miracles certainly cannot be discounted. However as long as it remains accepted Muslim doctrine that any land where Muslims live now, or have lived in the past, is theirs and must be ruled by Sharia, Muslim law, there is a risk that Islam will destroy all its enemies – or, at least, try.

To paraphrase Reverend Martin Niemöller, a German pastor during the Holocaust,

 First they came for IDF members, and I did not speak out—
 Because I was not a member of the IDF.

         Then they came for all Israelis, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not an Israeli.

         Then they came for the other Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

[Fill in everyone else.]

         Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The world supports them, but sooner or later the haters will come for everyone and, unless the intolerance is abandoned, there will be no one to speak for us.

Unless there's a miracle.

Next episode: “Pot Luck" — Marijuana used to be bad, but now it's good.

 

Nota Bene 5

Time for my monthly data dump. Here are some more ideas that I put aside for later use that, now that I'm facing reality, I'll never have a chance to develop. I think of things I want to say faster than I can say them, and I don't want to increase the rate at which I publish my blogs,ⁱ so I leave it to you. Let me know if you use anything.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Martyrs – Last week (from when this was written, not from when it appears) 148 university students were killed in Kenya. They were murdered for no other reason than they were Christian. They were martyred by Muslims from Somalia.

Muslim groups, on the other hand, declare any of their coreligionists who dies in one of his group's actions a martyr. The designation applies even if the individual soldier is killed while acting as a suicide bomber in the midst of killing as many enemies as possible. (An enemy is anyone who disagrees with the killer in terms of religion or politics.) Other martyrs are Muslim children forced to be in the line of fire when actual soldiers are fighting.

Who is a martyr? Does anyone who dies as a result of religious wars qualify? The concept and the term require clarification.

If you can't stand the humidity, get out of the shwitz.^iv – The paraphrase of Harry Truman brings up visions of politicians playing “hardball.” We're faced with images of competition and, even moreso, by the ability to ignore sensitivity: both by the one who deals out the “humidity” and the one at whom it is aimed. If either of them lacks a “thick skin,” he'd better look for another line of work.^v

Dealing with pressure is an important part of almost any enterprise. The ability is vital not just in politics, but in competitive sports, business, and school. In fact it's critical wherever there's a deadline.^vi In addition, I sometimes think that there's always competition, whenever two people are interacting there's an urge to do better than the other – or at least to one-up him. There's no easy way to deal with life's pressures. Or is there?

Religious rights and discrimination – The brouhaha over the religious rights act in Indiana and the federal law on which it's based can't be viewed as any more than an extension of our decision to outlaw “hate speech.” I've expressed my reservations about that policy many times (see especially “Boy Scouts Lite” – August 25, 2013).

It's worth exploring where religious rights trump laws against discrimination and the reverse. Does the government have the option and authority to dictate what people believe and how they will put their beliefs into action? Does it have the right to prohibit “discrimination” of citizens, or do individuals have leave to act in an offensive manner? Does rite make right? I've weighed in on the subject before and I'd be interested in the views of others. Feel free to speak your mind. As long as you don't harm me physically, I can take what you dish out. At least I think I can.^vii

Peace and war – I'm against peace. I'm sick and tired of it – at least as expressed by its voluble advocates who accuse those who might not mindlessly fall in line with their beliefs of being war-mongers. I'm dismayed by those who propose it. It's not that I favor war. I'm opposed to that as well. But, sadly, there are those who use their power to impose their views on others looking for a “cause,” and rely on the immature and those who advocate “peace at any price” to intimidate their opponents. They employ those who follow their teachings as “useful idiots.”^viii Their shills are so caught up in the rhetoric and the slogans that they don't stop to analyze what they're repeating. It's a form of populism – the form that allows a demagogue to frame the conversation and then fill in the picture himself. Actually, it's fanaticism. Eric Hoffer wrote about the phenomenon,^ix and I cannot rid myself of the fear that he was right and thought will ultimately give way to charisma. Who knows how it will play out?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's nothing very original here, but these are issue that have been on my mind. I'm sure I'm not the only one bothered by them, but there are other things on my mind as well and, for the moment, they take precedence.

Next episode: "Present Perfect – Now Is The Time" – Now is the time.

I        Lest I lose the one or two readers I have.

ii       It seems so recently.

iii      Freud and Oedipus are not to be denied.

iv       Steam room.

v        Not just the receiver, because the roles will be reversed soon enough.

vi       It's not my problem. I write these essays long in advance, and I'm a hermit and retired. So I don't have to watch my back.

vii      The Little Engine That Could is the story most associated with this statement but, according to what I've read, it first appeared in 1902 in a journal, and was penned by an unknown author. There were many tellings of the tale, but the most famous had, on its title page, “Retold by Watty Piper from The Pony Engine by Mabel C. Bragg's copyrighted by George H. Doran and Co." [Watty Piper was the pen name of Arnold Munk, owner of Platt & Munk.]

viii     The term was coined by Vladimir Lenin. He employed many of them to popularize his teachings.

ix       The True Believer, 1951.

"Reality" And Belief

                                                                                       

I just received from a friend a three-disc set containing a series hosted by one of Fox News's reporters, and describing “a political movement that, against all odds, changed the world.” The set appears to be about six hours in length and is entitled “The Right, All Along.” Hosted by a reporter who is a self-proclaimed Conservative,ⁱ and featuring the views and “... the stories of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush and many others,” the content is predictable. In an era of neatly packaged propaganda, this series is to be admired for the forthright way in which it proclaims its perspective in its title, and it has some appeal to me because I favor some of the positions what I'm certain it espouses. (I don't anticipate any objectivity, however, even though FOX claims to be “Fair and Balanced.” While I like FOX, it is fair and balanced only in the sense that it provides some balance to other media news sources whose biases are toward the left. It's like the Wall Street Journal, which provides balance when the New York Times is in the scale's other pan.)

But I shall not watch it.

I shall not watch it because I've spent too much of my time on books and videos that purport to demonstrate the unarguable validity of one belief system or another.ⁱⁱ Each viewpoint is defended as supported by some famous Nobel Prize winners, movie stars, athletes, and other personalities who, without any credentials to do so, vehemently advocate the views expressed, often unquestioningly.ⁱⁱⁱ Works like the one sent me clearly outline the position they wish me to adopt, in a manner painted as objective and clear. They don't require me to think. Indeed, they generally discourage thought. Often the position is claimed to be scientifically based – although the science is usually “cherry-picked,” self-serving, and credited to famous individuals – however the motives of those individuals are often in question, and their prejudices make the outcomes predictable. After reading and watching several of these I have come to recognize the genre^iv without wasting my time on other specific examples. I have better things to do.

Right now, for example, I'm in the middle of a book by Elie Wiesel entitled“legends of our time.”^v The blurb on the back cover states “a new mythology is being made in our time. For men to comprehend events of world-shaking impact, a mythology is required...” The stories present unanswered – and perhaps unanswerable – questions that require the readers to consider the questions themselves, and the moral implications of the different approaches presented by the situations depicted. The outlines are there, but no attempt is made to dictate the decision.

A couple of decades ago, when I was writing a book featuring fanciful and unlikely Jewish ritual objects, my younger son, Daniel (now a Rabbi and teacher), suggested something he called “Tefillin The Blanks.” Tefillin are boxes worn on the arm and head during the morning service. The boxes contain parchments on which one of the major precepts of the Jewish religion is written, and my son's idea was that the parchments should only have the outlines of the words, with the user given the opportunity to participate by filling in the blank spaces. That would also offer the chance to consider, and to fill in mentally, the ideas that the letters and words represented. And the different users would have divergent understandings of the meaning of the verses, because the thoughts would not be predigested and indefeasible, but open to each individual's personal “take” on the idea. It was not a catechism, but the starting point for thought.

One of the earliest literary forms was the myth. It was designed^vi to provide answers for the questions everyone had about the world around them. It did not matter that they invoked extranatural solutions. All that counted was that they offered solutions. Legends, sagas, and folk tales were the outgrowth of mythology. And when answers were desperately sought, they provided the path to certainty. Some put religion in the same category, and while “myth” is a loaded word, religious faith may also provide the comfort of unqualified certainty when questions abound. Should the answers of the different systems compete, it's worth remembering that all of them may contain some element that is right – at least if they are reached after all the possibilities were considered. But error is likely when someone adopts the point of view that his beliefs are the Truth, while everyone else's are mythology, and wrong.^vii

That's what propaganda is all about – ready-made and obvious answers. And anyone who rejects those answers is being misled. I recently heard someone say something to the effect that he always seeks the truth, but fears those who have it. It is often the case that the question is more powerful than the answer. It is our responsibility to fill in the outlines ourselves, rather than to accept the certain positions of others – however professionally they're presented. No one should do it for us. No one can.

 

Next episode: “Whatever It Takes” – The end justifies the means.

i       “[D]uring 2006 [Brit] Hume said, 'Sure, I'm a conservative, no doubt about it.'” – Wikipedia.

ii      Only my belief system is valid. It's not unarguably so, however, because there are fools who will argue about anything.

iii     How some entertainment stars became experts on politics and society – aside from the reality that they proclaimed themselves so, and gave money to (and speeches favoring) some political candidate – is beyond me.

iv      Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover.

v       1970, Avon Books.

vi     “Designed” is a strong word and suggests intent. Perhaps that's overstating the situation, at least in terms of conscious intent. But even if there was no such plan, it was at least unconscious, and folk explanations of the unfathomable are what resulted.

vii     Ignore note #2 (ii) for the moment.