Shoah/Holocaust Education on the Web: I've Got Good News, and Bad News

As the standard physician-patient joke goes, regarding Holocaust Education on the Internet, I have good news, and I've got bad news. The good news, is all is not lost, and there is very fine substantial information via websites, books and videos ranking in the top 10 on a given search. The bad news is, its been infiltrated by overt and covert Revisionist sites, gaming sites, special interest spams and promotions, and the truly bad, 'forgot to tell you' news is that the best and most substantial sites are not nearly getting the rank nor attention they should for quality shoah, or holocaust education.

The Importance of Shoah Education on the Web

I could hardly be declared impartial when expressing how important Shoah Education is on the net. For the major museums such as USHMM, Wiesenthal Center, Detroit Holocaust Center, El Paso, NY Holocaust, Florida HM, and now Skokie as well as for the smaller, most of Holocaust or Shoah education is based upon the K12 sector (wisely, for the greatest lasting impression) and general public education. Only occasionally are special populations targeted. While one could never say they have not been effective, nor have reached millions over the past 25 or 30 years, still, for most people seeking the museums, visiting them or otherwise using their materials, there is some general agreement that the Shoah really occurred, and they serve to educate from their. They do indeed often run into hostility from Holocaust deniers and others who want their special groups featured, or do not want their children taught, etc, but by in large they are reaching willing learners.

Most individuals though who would never come to their museums either because of apathy or personal beliefs, or even logistics, start their search for holocaust information and education on the web, the genesis of a great deal of information processing at the beginning of this millennium. "SeditionAct.blogspot.com" has already attended to trends in holocaust education on the net, by looking at the number of mentions of certain sites on the net, and comparing them to revisionist sites, over the past 3 or 4 years. (See"Where is Holocaust/Shoah Education Going on the Web?")

This time, though I have examined on several key terms, which sites show up for perusal to a general search.

Searching the Internet for holocaust terms

To compare searches is somewhat of a difficult thing. For example, on Google one will get slightly or even radically different listings depending on how one phrases what they are searching for. An example of this will be seen in the first few terms, shown in the above chart. If a student, or any other computer user wants to begin looking up information about the holocaust in a blind search, they will more likely than not type in the word 'holocaust' to either Bing, Google, Hot Bot, Altavista or other search engines. Because Google is so pre-eminent in usage the searches done here are via Google searches. A 'robot' which is sort of a 'thing' that happens by code using algorithms and sundry other combinations of logic, probability, etc, 'detects' the word, and then spans out to related terms, sites, and information throughout the totality of the net. Consider for a moment that when one types 'holocaust' into Google search, one notes that it contains somewhere around 20,000,000 hits, meaning that at least the word is referenced world wide that many times, although it could be by accident, or in a song, or rock band, or used as a metaphor on an unrelated site. Far fewer sites are directly about the Holocaust extensively, and probably only a few hundred are major holocaust websites. Nonetheless, the degree to which someone will use the site and gain information off the site depends on a number of factors, but one of the most important is rank. 'Rank' the way I am using the term is different than the way the technical term 'Page Rank' is used as the latter involves a formula containing many criteria, but the 'Rank' I refer to is a simple place in a list. I have chosen for this little study a look at the first ten.

Before looking at the results for several key terms, one must also consider though that the best site, with an obscure rank, does no one any good. Most people today are handling information in a different way. Way back in the good old days of the late 70s and early 80s when I worked on my dissertation, one went to the University library, went to Indices and services such as ERIC or PsyAbstracts, etc and then poured for hours and hours, days, weeks and even years over referenced listings of any journal or book article available on a topic in order to do what Google can do in seconds. I took a year and a half of reading and research to develop a viable reading list in my area for my dissertation. Now, the 'ancient' way had some advantages, because a good researcher could synthesize and do a 'cluster analysis' on all the info which aided in forming an approach to a field etc, and by the time one was finished, they had detected and assigned categories and subcategories and already divided relevant from irrelevant information.

Today though, sitting at home in front of a PC instead of down at the library with the clock ticking, I type in the name or word I am researching and immediately have 0 to 20 or more million results. Not all are relevant so it isn't perfect, but I can jump topic to topic with an insane speed, and even gain a quick breadth of understanding which would have taken much longer before. However, despite the best analysis, most of us, unless we are fervently exhausting a topic, will look no more than 3 pages down, and for many terms, the first page: 1-10, are the sites which will attract us to visit. If they are worth the war, we go back again and again and if they are superficial we do not. So the top 10 out of 20,000,000 for the word 'holocaust' is a rather heartbreaking and breath taking make or break rank for sites seeking to educate the unreached public on this topic.

Holocaust, Shoah, and Shoah Education

With all that in mind, one would think that the broad general searches would immediately lead to sites such as USHMM, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Yad Vashem etc who have poured tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars into their free use sites. They do indeed have significant, organized, and excellent teaching sites, but the sad truth is, they are not well optimized and often do not reach anywhere near the people in the way and on the topics they should. My site does not show well at all on the term 'holocaust' but on the term 'shoah education' we are consistently #1.

RANK	HOLOCAUST	SHOAH	SHOAH EDUCATION
1	WIKIPEDIA	WIKIPEDIA	SHOAHEDUCATION
2	USHMM	WIKIPEDIA	SHOAHEDUCATION
3	USHMM	USC	SHOAHEDUCATION
4	ABOUT.COM	LANZMANN	MEMORIALDELASHOAH.ORG
5	HISTORYPLACE	MTSU	ABOUT.COM-SHOAHEDUCATION
6	HOLOCAUSTSURVIVORS	DDICKERSON	EUROPEAN JEWISH CONGRESS
7	HOLOCAUST-HISTORY	AMAZON	SHOAH TEACHING-MJHNYC.ORG
8	REMEMBER	YAD VASHEM	STORMFRONT
9	AUSCHWITZ.DK	ZWOJE-SCROLLS	SEDITIONACT.BLOGSPOT.COM
10	JEWISHVIRTUALLIBRARY	LANZMANN	JAMESDEVITA-MYSPACE

Note a few things about this comparison: The first is that a non-holocaust site, Wikipedia gained a number 1 Rank, on the terms 'Holocaust' and 'Shoah'. This is significant since it indicates that an open-source site which is not about the holocaust per se, and may entail many perspectives (although Wikipedia's sections are usually superb in this area), 'beat out' even USHMM, SWC and Yad Vashem. That does not mean that the others are not worthy 'opponents' but rather that any number of factors may be at play: lesser site optimization, less visits, less 'marketing' and site promotion, or generally 'hiding' good pages. With the word 'holocaust' it does not matter so much since all the top three ranks for all three terms are occupied by traditional-information pro-Israel sites, with solid introductions. As we get down the list though, that is not the case. Some are book sale issues such as the James Devita site under 'shoah education', and even one with a number 8 ranking, is the premiere neo-Nazi site, 'Stormfront.org'. They did their homework to rank so highly on a term that is traditionally frequented more often by those who are either Jewish or have some acquaintance with Jewish terms.

Before going on to examine other terms and overall reach, recall that these numbers and ranks change with terms, with whether the expression is in quotes or not, with the day the search is done (even the hour), and with phrasing. For example, later we will examine the term 'final solution' and find that 'the final solution' will even yield different ranks. For that reason, as we discuss these ranks, one should maintain a broad perspective that while on the morning of November 4th, 2004 the numbers read this way, tomorrow they may vary. Usually day to day the variance is slight, but even that may change, for example if a site is mentioned on a broadcast.
Also, while I have used mostly the raw list, if a top ten listing was absolutely not related such as when I searched 'white rose' I got flower sites, I skipped the rank for the next truly related site.
Killing Centers , Concentration Camps and Jewish Ghettos
Among the holocaust related terms most likely to be searched for are 'Killing Centers', 'Concentration Camps' and "Jewish Ghettos". The first two are usually synonymous, except to scholars, although the general public and news media still prefer 'concentration camp'. Notice below, a few things about the searches. Again, Wikipedia, figures highly, fighting for rank with USHMM. Shoaheducation.com for some time held a #1 on "Killing and Atrocity Center" but on the shortened term has dropped to #4 although we include basic summaries of about 42 camps. A more detailed site than ours, and an excellent one who accomplished more than most is DeathCamps.org which only shows a #8 rank on 'Ghettos' but is one of the better factual resources on Concentration camps on the net. (There is a difference between death-camps.org and deathcamps.org). Yet consider the overall number of possibilities: for 'Concentration Camps' the overall hit # is 2,390,000. For Killing Centers it is 48,200 and for 'Jewish Ghettos'the # is 34,200. The top ten should yield substantive sites, but look at the data! The first five on all terms are traditional information oreducation sites in shoah education, but the second five, vary with even apfn.org which covers American Concentration camps, or 'abovetopsecret.com' whose top story today is "
Turn a 2-Liter bottle into a 50 watt lightbulb (w/ video)", or books or school student run sites. (There are two of those who rate in my book, including the fine work of Spartacus and Miami-Dade, although they are not streamlined yet for general education). Now, even out of the lowest total, the top 10 of 34,200 is a miniscule part of one percent and should yield 10 super fine sites, but after 12 years that is not there. SWC, Yad Vashem, Detroit, where are they? They cover those topics excellently! The answer is fairly simple: they either do not optimize, or do not optimize well. And they need to.

RANK	concentration camp	KILLING CENTERS	ghettos
1	WIKIPEDIA	USHMM	USHMM
2	WIKIPEDIA	USHMM	WIKIPEDIA
3	REMBER.ORG	LIBRARY.THNKQUEST	WIKIPEDIA
4	JVL	SHOAHEDUCATION.COM	FCIT
5	USHMM	REMEMBER.ORG	AISH
6	apfn.org	WIKI ANSWERS	H.E.A.R.T.
7	FCIT	MASSVIOLENCE.COM	JVL
8	MTSU.EDU	JEWISHVIRTUALLIBRARY	DEATHCAMPS.ORG
9	ABOVETOPSECRET	WW2.DSO.NODAK.EDU	SPARTACUS
10	SPARTACUS	GOOGLE BOOKS	Merr-Webster-AOL

Hitler, is one of the most frequent terms used in holocaust word searches. It occurs more than 38,300,000 times on a Google search today. Those who are involved in shoah education wish to make very sure that the facts about the man and his life are dealt with well in order not to induce any unhealthy fascinations. So how do the stats read by site?















Wikipedia and Jewish Virtual Library are pretty sure bets for # 1 and #2 rank, and hitler.org while it can provide excellent historical information, and is not formally a revisionist site, refuses to regard itself as a tolerance site or not, according to their statement since they consider themselves purely historical in perspective. Interestingly, a primary source for holocaust information is becoming that of Youtube.com, the search for videos which includes myriads of documentaries, clips, powerpoint presentations, films etc on most holocaust topics and includes very fine historical footage. It is however non-interfering and it can be mixed with everything from joke sites, (one is Skip Hitler, the gay grandson routine, go ahead, type it in, see if i care), to kids talking, or even soft porn. It can be a good teaching tool with an experienced person selecting the clips though, but consider that at this point, it ranked # 8 out of over 38 million in providing information on the web about hitler, with just one of its clips. And that clip is well, not what one thinks it is, but another crude parody.

Endlosung, Final Solution and Operation Reinhard

Lets consider the terms Endlosung and 'The Final Solution of the Jewish Question', with Endlosung the German 3rd Reich term for the latter. The search runs as follows:

Note the difference in searching for the german name for a concept or event or program in the shoah, vs. looking for the familiar name: on 'Endlosung' my site, shoaheducation.com comes in at #1 and has for some years. Is it because it is a more scholarly or sophisticated site? No, probably the reason is that the page is called 'endlosung.html' in the file list, but called 'The Final Solution' on the page. I don't want to lose my rank, but I couldn't argue if a more scholarly work were under the German term. Again, youtube.com appears in the fray for endlosung, but not for the others. The find? The link leads to "The Proud German Army in Normandy". And secondly to some sort of 'gamer' clip. That link though ranks #6 in the top ten hits for 'Endlosung'. Under the more traditional terms "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question", again Wikipedia takes the top, helped both by quality and massive visits, with my site shoaheducation #3 and Jewish Virtual Library, one of the finest net resources #4. Is it because my site is 'better': no: JVL is a more detailed, research oriented site, with more than one section with fairly definitive information across the board. My site, though, shoaheducation.com is what most introductory level people and persons needing fast information are looking for: a reporter or college student may need a real quick idea of what the 'final solution ' was. Shoaheducation.com not only gives that, but quick facts, and outside links to the more extensive and/or scholarly sites, so it becomes a site for all seasons. Just different. Some with holocaust sites have over-estimated the time people will spend on sites. I feel satisfied if time on my pages average about 3 minutes. That is the average of everything from accidental clicks to researchers who read the whole thing. Seconds to minutes, but rarely more than that unless they leave it on forget and go out to lunch! The 'brilliant' sites often have too much information which people like me need, but the general public only needs with a defined purpose. It is not that my site or other sites like it are better, in some cases quite the opposite, but it is because it is suited to the type of education that needs to occur on the much used web. Also note that in the time between this morning when I ran these figures and now, the rank has already changed and some of our dear Islamic friends moved into the top ten from out of sight. That is the nature of the game.

Einsatzgruppen

Lets try another term. (We are looking at around 16). Einsatzgruppen finds Wikipedia again at #1 , and they have knocked the ball out of the hands of alot of us. They are followed on the term Einsatzgruppen by holocaust-history.org, and Ushmm, deathcamps.org and Jewish Virtual Library in the first 5. Well known traditional sites hold until the #10 spot where we get datasync.com. Who is not in the top ten? Yad Vashem, shoaheducation.com, Nizkor, SWC, and others one would expect. Time to optimize.

Germanization, Volk, 'Burning of Reichstag', White Rose, Weimar Republic,
beerhall Putsch, Munich Putsch
All of the terms above are common terms in Introductory level Holocaust or Shoah education. Consider the tables below: These terms will carry us through all but the last term, and only a few comments will be made due to the length of this discussion:

And for the terms:  Beerhall Putsch, Munich Putsch  and Weimar Republic:

Note that Munich Putsch and Beerhall Putsch are a common name vs. the term scholars use show different listing:  and the common term has a namesake website which often hits #1 or at least highly.   While most large websites cannot afford in many ways to make individual domain names and sites out of many key terms, it is a thought when a particular concept is of utmost importance to teach correctly on the web.  Note also that the scholarly term, Munich Putsch, finds more significant site listings than does the common and widely used term, but that common terms often have a grassroots appeal.

Not to leave out the third term of 'Weimar Republic' we find a mixed bag: since Weimar Republic is a term which may be used independently of shoah education, as a mere point of history, we note several sites that are education oriented or pbs, a news site. To some degree there is no real way to optimize around it but it shows the difficulty some terms face.

Lastly, the term I have included is partly selfish, since a good deal of my site is focused on the beliefs, theology and ideology of the Nazis, I have included the term "Nazi Beliefs".

We end up #1 and 2 on this term. When a site ends up repeated in the top ten it may be that there are two pages on the site with a primary focus on the topic, e.g. my page hits #1 for a main page which is /nazibeliefs.html and which I have in the past used as a subdomain, and the first main page on the index page: a page dealing with significant people who influenced the Nazis' beliefs. We are followed by Wiki Answers which shows a grassroot interest in the topic as does the appearance of the topic in an article in the LA Times. The others though are off topic and a little less serious than might be beneficial meaning this topic while widely dealt with on the net is not well dealt with.

How do We Fare?
How do we fare? Lets consider some average rankings across terms:

Wikipedia: 1.545
Ushmm: 2.1 of the only 10/22 terms where it is mentioned
in other words, when mentioned, avg=2.1 rank, but across terms,
mentioned in only 45% of terms.
Jewish Virtual Library:
5.125 avg when mentioned on a term, mentioned on 36% of terms in top ten.
Not very just when one considers the thousands of hours in that fine site.
Spartacus
avg 7.3 rank when mentioned, mentioned in top ten 6 out of 22 times of
terms here, or 27.2
shoaheducation.com
avg 1.8 of times mentioned, but mentioned on only 54% of terms in top ten.
this varies, and past experience is that out of 40 key terms
regularly checked, within top ten to 20 on most .
Fcit 6.33 avg but only 13.6% of terms rank in top ten. FCIT is widely
referenced though, so a different combination of terms may
different results.
deathcamps.org 7.5 avg of time mentioned, but only mentioned 13.3% of the time:
I've appreciated for years the amount of work in that very
fine site, and its just very sad that the ranking isn't
higher.
remember.org 5.75 mentioned in top ten on 18% of terms

The others I will not include for brevity's sake but here is a real problem: on these very common terms, Yad Vashem, Simon Weisenthal's MOTCL , and a number of other well known sites do not show consistently though they have quality work. In fact many of us are being 'bumped' by clever marketeers who know how to optimize a mediocre book, or promote a film, or even by a way over-rated but 'viral' youtube parody. That sort of stuff, to some degree can be rectified, and this week's blog needs to be heeded not as a critcism or an embarrassment,but as a signal to make sure that the quality holocaust/shoah education sites already on the net GET READ and DOWNLOAD!

A few hints:

1. Include Metatags on every section. Better than losing out to 'Skip Hitler'.
2. Carefully think out key words. Hitler.html can include Hitler, adolph hitler, fuhrer, Germany, Third Reich, Nazi,Nazi Party, etc. etc.
3. Write detailed inclusive titles on title tags in the header of each page. My page entitled 'endlosung.html' carries the title:

It says more than one has to, but is inclusive on terms which might be hit in a search.
4. Correct optimization will do more for your page than marketing techniques and paid advertisements.
5. Get real sites to backlink to yours, or better to reciprocal link.
6. Include internal links.
7. Use color, style and simplicity, and text width of about 500 to 550px is optimum. Nobody reads very much of a white page without borders or margins.
8. Use photos with alt tags.
9. Use identifiable links.
10. Avoid garish colors.
11. Avoid print so tiny that half the world over 50 can't read it.
12. Add key points summaries.
13. Choose clear page names. My Eugenics page is called by an obscure name which means it lowers its usefulness in a search.
14. Clarify and organize your info in an all out index. USHMM has state of the art info and material, but it is scattered and hard to navigate from the front page for beginners and those not familiar with the site.
15. Get sites finished and then learn how to often ping, do tracer-routes, reset or re-ftp recent backups etc so that hackers or 're-writers' can't make it look like they had part of your site. Its your intellectual property, and they are committing as much as a felony when they hack.

That's just a bit for now. There's alot at stake. Like a generation.

ekbest

A Bridge to Somewhere Part II: Toward a Viable Christian Shoah Education

I left off the first section, beginning to discuss the idea of Agape Love vs. secular concepts of Tolerance. Which ever side of the road one stands on, to understand how to bring both parties together in a viable 'Tolerance' education based upon shoah education, both sides need basically two things:

1. A long deep breath
2. Understanding how the other side sees the world (without enragement)

Before proceeding with the discussion there are two things I am NOT promoting: I am not promoting a blind 'Ecumenism' nor am I suggesting that there is necessarily common ground. To suggest a flowery 'all join hands' approach is unrealistic in the realm where both fundamental believers and secularists see each other as adversaries.Secondly, the main objective is not to 'change minds': that is one of the silent background goals of many on both sides, and it is not likely to happen, at least not most of the time.

What then is a viable approach? The most viable approach must include a form of mediation for discussion between two very unlike positions, a inter-position dialogue, and an internal solution. The meeting place for both Christians , Conservative Jews and other fundamentalists, with secular viewpoints of tolerance, is in discussions of:

1. Respect for the basic humanity of the person
2. Respect for basic civil and human rights based upon empathy
3. Respect for the Legal process as a reasonable step in protecting rights
4. The willingness to allow efforts towards Tolerance which do not include endorsing certain lifestyles.

The fourth concern, will no doubt rankle some Tolerance advocates, because they refuse to consider tolerance as having been achieved, without acceptance. The only solution though is to bend a little. Conservative believers often do not accept certain lifestyles as moral or acceptable by their faith. Does that mean they are 'intolerant'? To some extreme liberals, it does, but there really is a place of unconditional love, that does not require unconditional 'acceptance'.

What one hopes to achieve and what is achievable are two different things. For twenty four years, I have walked among all different kinds of folks, many in radically conservative churches with backgrounds and beliefs far different than my own, and I know what is possible and what is not. For example, I have seen some real tough cookies, who picket gay parades (and they have a right), and who talk tough and even hateful towards those in a gay lifestyle. Some will never change. I learned the difference though between those who talk tough globally vs. actions in a given situation when it is one on one.

I recall a firsthand story of an Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher, a fiery fellow, who railed against certain 'types' and preached about AIDS as a curse from God, etc. Due to a church-state issue, he was imprisoned for a short time, and incarcerated with a young man, in for a prostitution charge, with an advanced case of AIDS. The older down-south preacher, one would think in his 'intolerance' would have been a nightmare for the young man, but instead, he was both comforting and advocated for the humane treatment of the boy. Now, who is tolerant, in a way which yields a liveable society, the advocate who bullies persons into a verbal acceptance of a person in a disagreeable lifestyle, or the man who though loud and boisterous in his protest, would even lay his reputation and life down for someone he completely disagrees with?

Some would answer that neither is acceptable, but reality demands a workable goal. Some Tolerance education will work even on the hard shell folks, but they will never 'accept' points of view which oppose faith.

In the christian faith, we understand 'levels' of love: there is a 'philia' which is a brotherly love, and an 'agape' love, which is the love of God. The Christian faith, sees all men as sinners in need of the healing of Salvation, the gift afforded by Jesus Christ. In the highest calling of the faith, the very 'best' Christian, should actually be far more tolerant than the world, whether it is an issue of race or other regard. Does this mean we lay down our beliefs about drug use, or alcoholism, or homosexuality, or occultism, etc? No, not even a little, but it means we learn to love and are granted the love of God, for those whose behavior we find abominable.

This is not a blind tolerance, but it is not an unrealistic or unreal one either. Unconditional love for a person says, "I do not like one aspect of you, but I not only grant you 'rights', but seek to love and comprehend." The intolerance often comes from a person who refuses to accept that while they may 'choose' a certain lifestyle, not everyone has to confess it is all right, to be tolerant.

The problem of racial intolerance, is actually far easier to deal with in Fundamental faith. There still does exist even in suburban congregations, a great deal of old fashion prejudice: prejudice against Jews, against Afro Americans, against Latinos, etc but while it is dangerous and vile, it is not always out of hatred. Prejudice of this sort stems from

1. A lack of exposure to the group in question
2. A lack of education regarding the group in question
3. A lack of reasoning, coupled with cultural myths, or
4. Real pathological hatred , a xenophobic sense

Some misguided intolerance is doctrinal. For example some who truly come to Christ, and seek to be excellent in their walk, have the remnants of fables and rumors which they have never addressed, that continue to exist in a somewhat moronic duality. For example, some believe that the Jews are the ones who killed Christ and should be shunned, but that is false doctrine, skewed towards prejudice. Some believe that the church replaced the Jews, and have never examined the illogical tone of tht doctrine. Aish.com a well known conservative Jewish website has a very fine learning module which takes the most common myths about Jews, and shows statistics and information which point by point discount the often repeated but seldom examined ill atributes. They address issues such as world Jewish conspiracy, Jews and money, etc, in an easy web format, which should be more accessible in the Christian community.

to be continued...ekbest

A Bridge to Somewhere: Toward a Viable Christian Holocaust Education

Repairing the world and a Crossroad in Jewish Art and Christian Themes of the Shoah

Standing in the Gap Between Secular Tolerance/Shoah Education and Separation with Doctrinal Purity: Problems for Christian Shoah Education

While one may debate quality or method, one thing which can be rightly commended in the past 50 years, is the movement towards broadbased Shoah, or Holocaust Education. Most if not all Shoah Museums now have Educational Outreaches to schools and the general public. K12 Education has warmly received holocaust education in the schools, albeit with great logistically difficulties and occasional ideological conflict, but has nonetheless made great strides in both classroom and textbook shoah education, coupled with remembrances, auditorium presentations, and hands-on 'similtudes' such as chaining paperclips, memory trunks such as those offered by Tennessee Holocaust Commission, trips to USHMM in May or the summer months , trips for students and teachers to Poland and/or Israel and a variety of other productive 'methods' for getting the point across. One of my favorites recently was a youtube message from school children to say Happy Birthday to Israel with children giving reasons about what they like about Israel, or a related sequence about children gathering in CA on a football field spelling out warm wishes to Siderot.

Choices in Holocaust education have also expanded with only a few problems. At the same time though, especially in the past 20 years, and even moreso in the past 10, there has been a strong move afoot to introduce principles of Tolerance education and Shoah Education into the Christian Education arena: the enthusiasm has been vibrant, but the obstacles are even greater.

Christian vs. Secular Views of Tolerance

Most sane people do not have any problem with a general idea of 'Tolerance'. The secular community, and in more detail the Holocaust Studies community, have little trouble defining 'Tolerance', which is usually implicitly considered the endpoint of Holocaust Education, although that debate is not so open nor frequent as it needs to be. Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance includes the following objectives leading to a definition:

Mission Statement

The museum of Tolerance is the educational arm of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an internationally acclaimed Human Rights Organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust and fostering Tolerance and understanding through community involvement, educational outreach and social action.

Description

The Museum of tolerance challenges visitors to explore the meaning of Tolerance and the consequences of intolerance by focusing on the history of the Holocaust and the dynamics of discrimination in our world today. through unique state-of-the-art teaching technologies and interactive exhibits, the Museum of Tolerance engages visitors in a journey of self-discovery, to confront their own prejudices and to assume responsibility for the choices they make.

The themes for Tolerance education center on appreciating diversity, racial tolerance, 'self-discover' and combating prejudice. Those all seem to be very noble goals, and to some degree, one might think most would not find them controversial, but for fundamental and Orthodox religions including Judaism and Christianity, the definitions and goals while not incompatible, must be considered and achieved in different ways. One of the foremost discussions in understanding objections to secular Tolerance Education, is the issue of Separation, followed by the dialogue between 'love' vs. 'acceptance'.

Separation: An Issue Across Religions

One of the difficulties in joining hands with secular Tolerance education, despite similar goals, for a fundamental Christian or member of other Orthodox religions, is the problem of 'Separation'. This issue has existed since the beginning of time. The New Testament teaching of "in the world, not of the world" comes into play, but long before Jesus taught it plainly, the idea of separation from the world was replete in Torah teaching. Conservative Jews and Christians are taught not to necessarily 'retreat' from the world, but to confront the world with a strong attitude of discernment: affecting the world, but not being negatively affected by it. Strict Torah teaching teaches separation in marriage, not so much based upon race but upon faith, and so does strict adherence to the Word of God in Christianity. The intent of biblical teaching is never to see racial inferiority, but as the Way of God superior to the ways of the world. An example of this biblical teaching is in Ezra, when men of the congregation of Israel are called to 'put away strange wives', i.e. wives who are not of Israel. The same Torah, though, teaches that Miriam was cursed with leprosy for 7 days for criticizing Moses' marriage to a Midianite, Tzipporah. We see then the complexity, but nonetheless reality of issues which arise in Orthodox and Fundamental faiths, that do not arise in secular teaching.

Tolerance vs. Acceptance

Another issue in Conservative Christianity and Judaism not always adequately addressed are issues such as definitions of certain lifestyles as sinful, and therefore to be rejected, vs. worldly attitudes of acquiescence. This issue is never fully resolved, for the strict adherents to faith, to be obedient, reject certain lifestyles such as homosexuality, transgenderism, substance abuse, etc while others see them merely as choices. For a conservative Christian, one can be 'tolerant', even a step beyond, be 'loving' towards a person bound in those lifestyles, while secular viewpoints want to see persons 'arrive' at accepting the lifestyles. This, quite simply is never going to occur: it is where the rubber meets the road in Tolerance education, and the reason a consensus is not reached.
A consensus MUST be reached though, because this adverse dialogue is the reason behind opposition to such tolerance based issues such as Hate-Crime legislation, in which the dialectic is unresolvable, as those promoting Hate Crime legislation cannot imagine anyone being against it, and Conservative believers fear it will be used to coerce acceptance of destructive lifestyles and mores.

Tolerance vs. Agape Love

The never-resolving dilemma filters down to a linguistic maze: even the word 'tolerance' can find different meanings in both camps. I have observed though over the years, that one fundamental difference between conservative religious views of tolerance and secular views of tolerance exists. The conservative Christian or Jew, differentiates between issues of racial and physical-condition intolerance based upon things inherent in a person, that cannot be changed, vs. things which are behaviorally or cognitively oriented, and at least theoretical with even some difficulty can be changed.

Conservative Christians and Jews also share the belief of a 'sin nature', which secularists do not share. The basic teaching regarding the sin nature is that it is inherited as a part of the Fall of man in Adam, and that it is to be repented of. The meaning of the word sin, is 'missing the mark', with regards to being whole before God. The meaning of repentance, is a 'turning away' , usually referring to a turning away from sin, and towards God, wholeness and His way.
Secularists often have no beliefs in this area and instead have somewhat of an existential view of wrongdoing, being societally or self-defined. To an extent, these two viewpoints are unresolvable and show up particularly when one is called to have tolerance to a person or persons who one group believes should be accepted for a 'lifestyle' while the other group sees 'accepting' the lifestyle as accepting a sinful condition which would actually lead to harming the person in the long run.
The most obvious example and a premiere problem for tolerance education with regard to religious points of view is homosexuality.

Orthodox Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, Fundamental, Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity all define homosexuality as aberrant and sinful. The New Testament in the Book of Romans refers to 'abusers of themselves with mankind' and it is noted as reprobate, a serious condition when if severe enough does not allow repentance. Old Testament examples include occurrences in Sodom and Gomorrah and the practice is derived from the first name, in the word 'sodomite', a practice which was to be put out of Israel all together.

Secularists, particularly involved in homosexual activist endeavors or in Tolerance education (and some liberal Jews and Christians) see the practice as an 'alternative life style', and in the extreme position, which many hold, is that not only should the person in the lifestyle be tolerated, but the lifestyle must be also. This is where the two camps collide and few on either side will budge.

To accept a sinful lifestyle, would be to betray the commands of scripture, the first and foremost duty of a Christian or Jew. Many Orthodox and Fundamental Christians and Jews find a middle ground with regards to tolerance: to express love and concern for the person bound in the lifestyle they find distasteful and sinful, without condemning the person, but condemning the lifestyle as unhealthy and unwholesome. Secularists, however are often not willing to allow that codicil in definitions of nor laws regarding Tolerance nor hate crimes.

Almost no one on either side want to see anyone hurt or physically or mentally abused. Both sides usually agree that no person because of a belief or physical characteristic should be shown any civil prejudice such as housing restrictions, voting, assembly etc or anything covered in the Bill of Rights. Yet conservative believers neither are willing to compromise basic beliefs which have prevailed for 5000 years.

Another difficulty regards such issues as religious concerns with such practices as inter-racial dating and marriage. Secularists only rarely have a concern about such practices, viewing the situation only on the level of personal choice and freedom. Others though in the faith camp, while having no prejudice, quite honestly, regarding racial types , still 'prefer' or even insist that it should not be practiced in the immediate family. Is that wrong? Is it prejudice? One considers the objection of a white Baptist mother who does not want her son to date nor marry a black Islamic or Jehovah's Witness girl. We think of the mother often in today's world as bigoted. Is she? In this example, faith is mixed with racial issues. Scripture warns against even fellowship with unbelievers, or in the New Testament in II John

2Jo 1:10 -If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jo 1:11-For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

What if the young woman was a black Baptist, but the mother still did not want the racial mix? There is a difference in what is legally allowed by the society and what is wise or acceptable, but the truth is, we often see the desire of 'like kind' in Baptists as prejudice, which puts us in the position of being intolerant to their faith.

What if an Orthodox Jewish father does not want his daughter to marry an Afro-American man? Strict orthodox understand a teaching regarding intermingling, and for the Jews it was a continuing issue in the Scriptures, because the line of Messiah had to stay pure, and to come from the 'chosen people' whom God had sanctified and separated out. The father could be a liberal democrat on other issues and work nonstop for civil rights racially and otherwise , but would we see him as prejudice? Would we see him as prejudiced as we see the Baptist mother?

To take the example a little farther, what if the mother was a Black Islamic Fundamentalist, who did not want her daughter to marry a liberal white Catholic?
Many faiths teach and practice marrying within the faith. That is not prejudice, but an issue of solidifying like belief, and obeying God. Is the racial factor forefront? What if the daughter wished to marry a white Islamic Fundamentalist? If the mother still objected, would it be an issue of tolerance?

Tolerance education should not be used to try and retrain religious tenets. Tolerance education will be unsuccessful, if it tries to re-educate even familial PREFERENCE. This may rankle the collar of many in tolerance education, but first and foremost the task of educating tolerant people, is to get persons at a young age first to recognize the basic shared humanity of all living regardless of 'type' or 'kind'.

to be continued

Obama & the Nobel Peace Prize: The Canary Died, but Groupthink is even Worse: or...

The Revenge of the Murdered Fly

Nothing in this week's title makes any sense at all. So a little explanation seems at hand. This past week, the greatly surprized BARAK OBAMA announced his amazement at receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. In his words:

"I am both surprised and deeply humbled," Obama says at White House- Cnn.com

We also were surprized and deeply, well, debased, deflated, degraded, demeaned, demoted, denied, discomfited, discredited, disgraced, embarrassed, humiliated, lowered, made to eat dirt, etc, which according to Thesaurus .com are all synonyms of humbled. No one was more surprized than I was. In fact, I was wondering why I was not considered, being nobody , and having done nothing. I was wondering if they were going to award the same to like, I don't know, Mayor Daley, or Kim Jong Il, both of whom I suspect are in favor of multi-lateralism.

I mean, immediately several feats of Obama came to mind: he mediated the peace talks between Professor Gates and that Cambridge Police Officer, even while the Police officer drank tea at the Peace talks instead of beer. And he publicly shook hands with Hillary.

I was trying to think of some other Ombudsmen type behavior of Barak Obama, but all I could think of was that fly at the Press conference in the White House that kept buzzing around the President, President Barry, and how in the interest of peace, he stopped the interview but not the camera and beat the heck out of the poor invertebrate, killing it, kicking the body aside and instructing his men to come take the poor Musca domestica Linnaeus (house fly) away. I kept hearing Vincent Price in the background mouthing the words 'help me, help me'. That explains 1/3 of the picture above.

I remembered other Peace Prizes and related Nobel prizes which were given to men like Ossietzky in 1935 who stood against Hitler and lost his life after mistreatment in Esterwegen Lager, or Albert Schweitzer the great doctor who forsook the comforts of this life including his first love of playing classical organ music, to treat the poor in Africa. Or of Ghandi who lead India peacefully to victory, or Bishop Tutu, or the two women in Northern Ireland. It was also the week the last survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising died, Marek Edelman, who after defending his people to the near death, continued to stand against the communists in Poland, and for peace and freedom his whole life. I found it hard to reconcile.

However, in the scheme of things, I made my smart remarks, and then moved on. My personal feelings (the second hint to the photo): we have sent the canary into the mine, and it did not return. Dangerous down there. Doesn't look good ahead. Looks like something or someone got into the shaft and the canary didn't make it. Looks like we won't make it if we keep descending into that darkness. Looks like things have changed, even in Norway. In the days following everyone had an opinion, but even some Obama supporters shared the prevailing opinion: "huh?"

However

However, (and here is the effective transition), regardless of how one feels about the choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, and delighting in the momentary freedom to express our feelings, one has also to consider the rather horrid observation, that too many people feel they can commandeer a private award, or supersede the judgment of a privately appointed committee.

The Nobel Peace Prize was begun by Alfred Nobel, a Swedish Chemist and Inventor in 1895, in a grant in his Will. The first award came by 1901, and has included those mentioned above, plus notables such as Elie Wiesel , Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, and Woodrow Wilson and the Dalai Lama. It has often been controversial, such as when Yassar Arafat received a mutual award with Menachem Begin, or others which had a political charge. Yet one observation often going unspoken, is that the award is PRIVATE. It is a private organization, making a famous award, and it, quite frankly can give it to anyone it wants whether you or I agree or disagree.

Groupthink

What disturbed me far beyond my disagreement with the award, is a phenomenon I have seen rising in the West, which is very frightening to me as a writer, an independent scholar, an amateur artist, and citizen, is the idea that a private award, or work, or idea/concept, website, publication, or any other created work or event is allowed to be governed by "GroupThink". While the concept of 'groupthink' is not new, and has been portrayed even in film , literature and the Media, the emerging concept is one which blurs boundaries between ownership and public domain, and between what is private and public.

No amazement need be expressed that the phenomenon exists, for we have trained it carefully in Public Schools in the past 20 years, by taking away individual initiative and a reward for hard work, in favor of more 'holistic' concepts of all skills of individuals being prone to 'sharing'. We have done the same in Economics: those who earn more are expected to make up the slack for those who earn less (although the practice of that is far from perfect the expectation remains.) More troubling though is the notion that those with honed and innate skills and gifts and concepts, are somehow expected to 'share' those with those who have not trained themselves, or who are without gifts or thinking and reasoning skills. The idea that the group is eminent, and that the individual is not, sounds very good to some in our new Social Darwinism, but it is pushing the best and brightest out of the places in society, politics and the arts (and faith) where they should be, for the sake of excellent leadership.

We instead are falling prey to a very disheartening occurrence in which those who are unskilled or inefficient are promoted for the now more highly valued ethic of allegiance to the group. This is certainly not a new anomaly, it was a building block in the Gleichschaltung of the Third Reich. [the Great Coordination] In WWII Germany, as the Jews were redefined as 'Citizen-guests' and robbed of positions and appointments, the Reich created registries of artists and musicians and other entities such as travel agencies, which were opened on the first rung, only to Nazi Party members of Aryan descent. Even after the registries were complete,and 'non--Aryan' removed, the politics of appointment became Party loyalty. Even the Nazis recognized that they could not always appoint the most loyal member to a position he was unqualified for, though. For example, as the coordination process continued in the Berlin Opera House, the remaining Musicians were far from supportive of the removal of all Jewish artists, and quietly opposed or even shunned some Nazi appointments. However, the Nazis over time would find a party member at least somewhat qualified, and substitute consistently less competent people for more excellent appointments. Hitler believed that he could actually improve his new 'neo-classical' , neo-baroque era with the higher qualities of party loyalty, and adherence to Party standards in the arts and other fields. What actually happened though, was that the best even of Aryan artists were demoted or 'underemployed' as marginally sufficient NSDAP members took the reins.

The result?: Across the board, greater degrees of confusion overrode clarity in decision making, and the arts and sciences greatly suffered. In Medicine, the best physicians often rebelled even if quietly against what they saw as barbaric policies. Medical care for Germans suffered. While there were great boasts of a 'New Greece' or 'New Germany' with grand buildings and heroic design, nationalistic music and sense, and grandiose presentations, the actual quality of art became dictated, mundane, average to below average, even among the skilled, and creativity was not only not encouraged, but was seen as rebellion. (e.g. the closing of the Bauhaus).

Though seemingly unrelated to the issue of massive outcry regarding the award of the Nobel Prize, it really is somewhat of a harbinger that the same thing is beginning to occur especially in the West, where the value of 'rugged individuality' has always been honored and guarded, and where the semantic point of private ownership and endeavor, has been valued and kept. When the unpopular decision was made (most felt almost nothing warranted a world-level award in the first ten days of his administration), people did not merely disagree, the esteemed right of all free people, but often spoke of it as though we had some sort of entitlement to being a 'part of the decision' without regard nor respect for the fact that the privately governed award, is well within their right to make even and bad or unpopular decision.

When 'groupthink' sets in, the quality of work and creativity, as well as personal wellbeing and safety suffer. Some refer to 'mob rule' and even assign it some creedence in sociological terms, but the concern is real. I have seen it in a rather metastasized form even in Christian circles over the past 12 years: in developing what became several significant websites, entirely on my own, the work became subject to a sort of blind, 'who should be in charge of this work' thought process, as though anything that becomes successful becomes open to group decision making, as if the creatorship of a work had no role in its ownership. One can easily fall prey to this thinking: I began to wonder if there was some reason to it, until I considered the motive and skill level of those contending for my work. Some feel you have to look a certain way. Some feel you have to be young. Some feel famous people only should 'represent' a work, even if authored by another. Some feel that they have a right for their 'position' to be represented. Websites are not elections, there is no 'fair representation' called for. And quite frankly, the same is true for the Nobel Peace Prize: they do not have to even consider the opposing view.

The Obama-Canary Segue

We need to discern between a real freedom to express opinion on almost anything, and a troubling perspective that we have a 'right' in anything we disagree with. I do not believe Obama should have received the award. I believe he has caused contention in Church politics, with the appointment of his 'Faith-Initiative Committee' which represented truly only liberal and ecumenical perspectives; I believe he shows no wisdom in international relations and dealing with foreign leaders, often responding without the dignity of the Office, nor wisdom of State affairs over 'americanized friendliness'; I do not see any great change from the Bush administration in the dealings of Military abroad, as we continue to send troops to Afghanistan without clarity, to Kosovo without knowledge, and to withdraw from Iraq without longterm thinking (not that I do not endorse a withdrawal). I believe he is young, and community organizing in Chicago is laudable but not of the quality of action that warrants a Prize awarded to Honored World Peacemakers. A theory is not a successful accomplishment.

I also comprehend that in my 'armchair' reasoning and opinion, I have no right nor inclination to try and change the way the Nobel Committee makes awards. I am just as ardent in my opinion, that they have a right not to please everyone, without a scene rivaling the end of Shelley's Frankenstein. Obama fever is an exaggerated form of idolatry, and wisdom is not forefront. The canary did not return when sent slightly into the future, and we are all walking blindly into it, anyway, while dismissing our best and brightest minds, in favor of group think and party players. We are doing more than that: we are forcing bright, inventive and creative people to either leave, or spend their time here, censored, and criminally enslaved to the whims of brutal men.

ekbest.

Marek Edelman: Freedom Fighter

Marek Edelman, the man who would not let the light dim-Jpost.com

Among the saddest words I have ever read in the Jerusalem Post are the following:

Marek Edelman, the last surviving leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, passed away on Friday in Warsaw, Poland, aged 90.

Over 60 years ago, most of the people Marek Edelman held dear, were gone after a torturous year or two which resulted in a three week standoff of a small group of young freedom fighters who decided to go down to their death fighting, rather than ever willfully surrender to Stormtroopers who marched into their city.

Most of us cannot imagine with any accuracy the events of that year. Most of us cannot anticipate what it would be like to stand against hopelessness with a choice to resist, and die in the process or have others die in the process, or refrain from resistance and certainly die. And most of us, would never consider, watching our friends and loved ones die cruel deaths, chronicling the whole thing: details, dates, events, people and places, so that whether or not we lived, someone, at some later date, would find out what happened. But Marek Edelman did.

And then he lived, long past his counterparts, to an age, when even most new friends have passed away, but he saw Israel back in the land.

And there is little that is sadder, than hearing that the last survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising has died. There are some eyewitnesses we can not truly live well without, and Edelman is one.

A few years ago as part of shoaheducation.com, I carefully studied the account that Marek Edelman wrote concerning the events leading up to and during the Uprising, and with a few other sources to compliment, created from his information a timeline. That time line is included below.

In tribute, though, the legacy that the man leaves is one which started in youth and continued: the fighters were young people of the Z.O.B. primarily, who even as late teens and young adults smuggled arms, cajoled escapes, starved for resources , crawled through sewers, and laid their lives on the line, because they found out, though few would believe in time, that the trains were not leading merely to work camps. He was not in the beginning a great war hero or Jewish leader, he was a kid left alone at 15 when his mother died.

Among the few survivors, though, at the end of the Uprising, he surrendered, and at the end of the war he remained in Poland, in Lodz, met and married a nurse and became a Cardiologist at Lodz Medical Center: the subtle irony of healing hearts in Poland is not lost.

In 1967-8, a new persecution arose that smacked of the old one: rhetoric from the Polish government or thinly disguised sources railed against the 'Stalinists-Zionists' once again and before the last half of 1968, 30,000 Polish Jews had escaped over the borders, fearful of the Shoah reviving. Only about 5000 remained, and Marek Edelman was one of them. The Jerusalem Post quotes Edelman as saying:

"Someone had to stay with all those who died here."

After Mordecai Anielewicz, he took the leadership of the ragtag 'troops' in the Warsaw Ghetto, and true to form, a man of great honor, in words I will 'borrow' from the US Army (Im sure they don't mind) "He never left a fallen comrade".

Ninety years is more than most of us will live. He stood against mourning and the loss of parents as a child. As a child he stood against the Nazis. As a young man he stood against racial hatred again and the Polish government in the wake of the fall of Dubcek. As an older man he refrained from the Communist celebration/memorial of the Uprising, I suspect, well aware that tyranny in any form of government is an unacceptable fate for living breathing human hearts.

What do we do now? Who do we go to to say, "Tell me what happened then", "You were there, and I will believe you." We cannot do that anymore. In ten years, who will be left, who was old enough at the time, to remember? In twenty years, there will be none. I am grateful for the efforts of places like Yad Vashem, Fortunoff, Visual History Foundation and others who have captured memory , but even taped recollections are not the same as the look on the face that comes with remembering. At the end, I wonder if those survivors are in despair wondering who will ever remember or take account the way only they could.

No one lives forever, and the older I get, the more I am taught to 'number my days' and comprehend how frail we are. Still there are a few remarkable lives that do not seem replaceable by any vague imagination. Marek Edelman was one of those lives.
__________________________________
From shoaheducation.com/warsawtimeline.html
Order of Events Leading Up to the Uprising
(based in large part upon the narrative of Marek Edelman}
1939|1940|1941| 1942|1943|1944| 1945|

"The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me. " Song of Solomon

1939
# September: 3-400.000 Jews in Warsaw, Party Central Committee (Previous government) leaves as Nazis occupy
# November: In retribution for a tenant beating a police officer, 53 Jewish tenants are shot
1940
# Polish underground develops and implements first transmitter (radio station)
# Easter time: Bund members, especially youth conduct pogroms, lasts 40 days; beatings in streets
# November 15th: All Restrictions enforced: all Jewish civil liberties suspended: no one may cross from Aryan side of Ghetto to Jewish side, and vice versa upon penalty of arrest or death. Barbed Wire is erected around the Ghetto wall.
1941
# January-March 1941- First major deportation of Jews
# February '41: Zufundt group (resistance) meets ; agrees to fight to death.
# February '41: Manhunt begins throughout ghetto for non-reportees to Umschlagplatz*, for deportation.
# 2-12-41: 17 people crossing to Aryan side are executed, alarming 700 more in jail for same offense. 1
# Summer '41- Nazi Soviet War: New boundaries are drawn, and Jews in Poland escape as much as possible to Soviet side. Mass exterminations begin in Ukraine, White Russia [Belarus], Bialystok area. The news reaches Warsaw but is still not believed in full scope. (See Operation Reinhard, Mielec-effects of borders)
# An alliance of youth groupsnot unlike scouts forms in the ghetto. Later, this group will provide members for recruitment to the young Zionist resistance groups.1
# April 17, 1941-50 Social Workers Arrested and executed.
1942
# Jan. 14: -All resistance groups in the ghetto meet to agree on armed resistance as deportation calls increase.
# April 19.1942 Der Werker a newspaper in the ghetto reports that the violent actions in the ghetto were isolated incidents and recommends a low profile: Two resistance groups, HaShomer (The Guardian) and Hechalutz, which will join to fight in the uprising, disagree and warn of impending doom.
# April '42'- Youth groups are encouraged to participate in training for arms. Edelman reports weapons transports of pistols, rifles and grenades. Arms are smuggled in from sympathetic Polish Socialist groups, but in small numbers.
# April 18-July 22 '42'- The night of April 18th, 1942 marks a turning point in the ghetto from which point there are increasing aktions and personal violence against the Jews including nightly raids and shootings. Close to 1000 persons are killed during this time.
# May '42'-110 arrested for crossing to Aryan side, given special treatment' in gas trucks, all killed.
# May-July-Massive deportation into the ghetto including not only Jews but Roma Sinti (Gypsies)
# July 1942Tens of thousands deported to death camps. Joint effort of SS and Police. 300,000 to Treblinka by end.
# July 20, 1942- The Doctors of Gzyste Hospital killed. Many arrests.
# July 22, 1942- All unproductive Jews deported: Associated with holiday of Tish B'Av: the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.
# July 23, 1942- Worker's Committees (Labor), HaShomer and Hechalutz urge armed resistance. Many disagree feeling it would bring greater deaths and retailiation.
# July 23, 1942 Adam Czerniakow, head of the Judenrat refuses to sign the order for the deportation and death of the children of the ghetto stating, "They want me to kill the children of my people"... in a suicide note. He dies at his own hand as the deportations continue.
# July 1942- A resistance member, Zygmundt follows the deportation trains to determine whether their intelligence is correct or not: he discovers on the Aryan side that the trains are bound for the death camp of Treblinka.
# December 1942- Another arms shipment arrives.
1943
# January 9, 1943-Himmler visits Warsaw Ghetto. 8000 ordered deported. Anielewicz calls for resistance.
# January 18, 1943-In reaction to the '2nd' liquidation of the ghetto, the Z.O.B., "Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa " or "Jewish Fighting Organization" resists against the Germans on Mila, or Milo Street: 100 Germans killed. The Z.O.B., comprised of a union between HaShomer, HeChalutz and other groups, loses 80% of their members, but goes on to reorganize.
# February 1943-The germans bring in confederates from Lublin to convince Warsaw ghetto residents that deportations are just for 'work' camps. Z.O.B. kills Jewish collaborators.
# February '43'- Battle at Hallman's Joinery shop, a factory where only 25 of 1000 report for work. All shops related to the Joinery arsoned.
# March 1943- Germans no longer 'secure' in the ghetto: public attitudes changed. Z.O.B. gains contributions though a tax and contributions.
# April 19, 1943 2 a.m.- Germans approach the ghetto, armed and with tanks. Beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising which will last for 27 days, holding off the final liquidation of the ghetto and deportation of all citizens.
2:15 a.m.-Z.O.B. at battle stations on Mila Street and Zamenhofa St. Z.O.B. in bunkers surrounding the central block.
7:00 a.m-Tanks and troops enter the Z.O.B. occupied area/block. Z.O.B. opens fire; relies on explosives to extend their force limited by few weapons and members: all Nazi soldiers in area killed.
# April 20,1943-100 German soldiers killed in entrance to a factory: Silence for the rest of the day as more troops called in for reinforcement.
# May 1,1943- May Day Aktion: German retailiation against the uprising: shortages of food and supplies set in.
# May 8, 1943-German and Ukrainian soldiers surround the strongholds of the Z.O.B. in a 2 hour battle to the death. Arsons and bombings of all buildings orders. Women seen jumping from building as crowds cry out 'Komm, Komm'. (See Ignacy Schwarzbart telegram) Eighty percent of the Z.O.B. perish.
# May 1943 Stroop, the commander of Nazi troops in the Ghetto wires Berlin with the message, "The Warsaw Ghetto is no more". He keeps a detailed report of the days activities, bombings, killings, arrests, including a photo journal known now as the "Stroop Report."
# May 10,1943- A remnant of Z.O.B. members still alive escape via sewer ducts to the Aryan side where they are met with a resistance truck which they board in open daylight. They escape. Ihtzak Zuckerman escapes to Israel where he continues to live for many years. Mordecai Anielewicz, dies in the battle. Many of these escapees join partisans in the forests in the region and continue resistance work.
# May 17, '43'-SYNAGOGUE TLOMACKIE DYNAMITED BY GERMANS ON 17, Patients in JEWISH HOSPITAL FRANCISZKANSKA shot
# May 16-18- German factories and magazines dynamited by Z.O.B. This practice was common among resistance movements in the Ghettos where the Jews resisted in order to leave the Germans nothing of their work.
1944
# Small Uprising- by partisans in the forests, some of whom were former Z.O.B. members.
# Beginning of cleanup and razing of remainder of the ghetto. Later, prisoners from Auschwitz are brought back in work details for efforts such as brick reclamation and cleanup, saving some lives.6
1945
# End of WWII: 80% of Warsaw's buildings lie in rubble; Ghetto is completely erased. A small concentration camp is erected and remains till the end of the war. Today a memorial site stands over the site of the Warsaw Ghetto.
OUTSIDE LINKS Photo Credits: Adapted Historical Photo: Public Domain: Available through USHMM.ORG.
©2003,4; Elizabeth Kirkley Best PhD; Shoah Education Project Web

REFERENCES

1Marek Edelman, The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. [A personal, detailed account by a resistance member]
2USHMM- The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
3Jewish Virtual Library
4Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: World Zionist Organization: http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=915 5Ignacy Schwarzbart telegram to Stephen Wise, American Jewish Conference: From Archives of the Rader Collection, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, OH. Collection of documents from World Jewish Congress.
6Interview with Bela Klein, Chattanooga, TN; Holocaust Survivor: participant in the clean up of the Ghetto.

Born Free: The Problem of Net Neutrality and Policy Making on the Net

Net Neutrality and Free Use Issues on the World Wide Web

I took my doctorate in 1981, and for my dissertation research analysis, I used a keypunch machine with old tabulator cards, ran them through a hopper in the building across the street in the Engineering department of the University I attended, and then waited hours to days to get back 2ft wide sheets of dot matrix letters and numbers to see if the canned Statistical package I used, (BioMed or SPSS or SAS) worked. If I made an error, on one tiny point of data by putting it in a wrong column or if I didn't specify the name of a variable in my program, I had to start all over again. I really loved the fluttering sound of the card hopper, for it gave hope that I might have really found something.

At that time, we had no internet, really, but toward the end our floor got a phone terminal so that we could type on a scroll and not have to walk across the street. We were in heaven. One brainchild in the department who later went to Wharton actually had his own home computer, a real one, not just a TRS80, and he could sit at home and work his data and we were in awe. That was 1981.

By 1982, I had a position at another University, where I taught students basically not to be afraid of the computer, and how they could, for example, scroll their name, but even at that state University, we still did not have even intra-institution internet, nor by '83. Taking a position at a College of Medicine in 1984, we by the end of the first year had intra-institution internet, and we could email each other and send each other meaningful quotes, like "you can't kill time without injuring eternity". Like now. By the end, a few important folks at the Medical School could email out. It would be a few years later though, that in a public library, I first used green screen internet, and could get in that early form, a few articles, song lyrics, bibliographies and other asundry information, somewhere around 94-5, but by 1996, the first real graphic rich, linked website with tons of animated gifs that said 'under construction' came about, and both my children and I began to tackle HTML, web design, search engine issues, etc. One thread though ran through all those years: the internet was free to all, it was a 'cyber-place' where people could meet to share everything from scholarship and research to kooky ideas and talk to friends. I remember one of the first streaming videos I saw on the net was from the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem, and we with a few others, applied slide show ideas to our fledgling 1997 websites, including what is now called, shoaheducation.com. We were not cybergeeks, nor associated with large corporations on the net like SUN or Apple, nor Microsoft, but I was an educator, known for clarity and organization and 'systems' in teaching both academic and applied information, and I immediately saw the possibilities as did others for free education on the net.

What does all this have to do with NET NEUTRALITY? Quite alot as one begins to understand the commercial concerns which currently haunt the discussion, because whether one is talking about Comcast or ATT limiting P2P bandwidth or excluding competitors IPs from their service, or whether one is talking about blanket freedom for authors and educators on the net, the issue of who owns and controls or regulates the net, who polices the net, who may block partial access to portions of the net, or even individuals from the net boils down to whether the Internet is free and open to all, like a park owned by everyone where all can meet, or whether it is to be ultimately regulated by big business, the government or special interests, who often do not believe at all like most people do.

The issue facing Congress and being debated right now, is whether certain companies when selling services to all of us, such as COMCAST, ATT, or CHARTER, can, for example block each other or low level services, so that Jane and Joe Web will not have access to information about another ISP [Internet Service Provider], or whether they can limit in your service, certain services such P2P sharing like Bearshare or Emule or BitTorrent, or limit speed of upload or amount of bandwidth, the 'stuff' of the internet affecting speed and size, well sort of, without our permission or even knowledge. They intend to make money, and would like you not to see Czarina Telecommunications Company for half the price, but the question is whether they have a RIGHT to restrict your access to any part of the net, or even slow down your access.

A Definition of Net NeutralityTo begin to understand Net Neutrality, we begin with a standard definition, offered by Wikipedia:

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols); particularly those of competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Net Neutrality being debated in Congress involves much more than the law being debated as to whether companies controlling 'doorways' into the net can say, 'you can go into every door but our competitors' or 'you can download off of Bit Torrent but its going to take a day and a half'. That's the practicality of it to you and me, but it also involves a far more sinister issue, of just who owns the Internet or can make laws about it, or even policies, since it is an international entity (and interstate), and no one is really in charge, which brings us to the next difficulty:

Who is in Charge of the Internet?

If you ask an uninformed web user who is in charge of the internet, they would probably say something like 'Google' or 'Microsoft', but of course neither is true: they are both private companies which do business on , in and with the internet. Al Gore is not in charge. Obama is not in charge. Bill Gates, despite delusions of grandeur is not in charge of the Internet, nor the world. At least not anymore. I used to think ICANN was the most in charge of the Internet. ICANN is a regulatory agency which addresses issues of domain and domain names, location, e.g. IP addresses, propagation issues, and general order, registration and issues of ownership on the net, but it is affiliated with the Federal Government, so some in the rest of the world which actually exists outside the US, are just not as comfortable as Americans are with that concept. You can complain about crimes and bad business on the Internet to Police or the FBI, but it is not always even within their venue. People using foreign hosting companies for websites, may find themselves in a little international legal intrigue if something goes wrong. There are also many proponents of Net Neutrality, making the Net a sort of Cyber-Switzerland where all may do business, education and free speech without someone looking over their shoulder. So far, this is the way it has worked. It is a precarious spinning top which as long as it keeps spinning has been correcting itself, at least somewhat until recently. However, when corporations, the military, the government and other factions begin taking hits at that 'spinning top', it begins to spin wildly out of control.

Now I have a right to write this article My WAY, without COMCAST or even the FBI deciding what I can write. Google cannot purposely hide my site, or route it through through the Googleplex, so that somebody doesn't have to come up with their own goofy explanations of net neutrality. Blogspot.com cannot legally censor my column as long as it is within the policies I agreed to abide by. My family cannot re-route my column and give it to my brother, and no police department can decide whether my work is mine or not, or give it to another person.

Before one thinks that this doesn't happen, well, it does and has happened, and the subterfuge and mirror tricks one can pull on the net should make a person shudder, because an ISP could even make it impossible for millions of people to see a private site. We all, I think agree that shouldn't happen, for it is a 1st Ammendment issue of Free Speech and may include Freedom of Religious Practice, and it certainly involves issues of fair business practices and a laissez faire approach to free enterprise.

Comcast Schmamcast: What about the Little Guy?

There are though some issues which have to be addressed. We don't want Comcast to slow down functions on the net, or block them, but do I have a right to block spammers on my site? Can I keep out of my private site constant comments by one of my competitors, such as another holocaust site with a different point of view, or one who wants to close mine down? Do I have a right to (and I better) block IPs of persons hacking into my site? It's the same issues on an individual basis, it just involves fewer persons. Some feel it is a 'let the buyer beware' issue: if you don't like the practices of ATT or Comcast or Charter, then find another ISP. On the other hand, if too many take that tactic, then free use of the internet is greatly hampered, and enters into a horrible new age of litigation, which can only end in government control, or worse, but which will probably happen one day, an international aggregate which will police and control the net.

Now that may sound a little 'Conspiracy theory' to some, but it is the nature of the beast. (ha ha). I have been through 12 harrowing years on the net, developing several sites, but one in particular which all enjoyed moderate to great success. As the sites became more successful, more problems arose. Years later, everybody now claims they had a hand in thousands of hours of my hard work. People who disagree hack and slander. People who do not disagree either want it off the net or want it to market. I have to watch tracerroutes daily, have to check my WHOIS data often, have to ping the site almost daily, have to constantly compare old pages to new since there is a great deal of information with details, have to deal with persons I haven't seen since High School deciding they can just walk into it, or Museums, or schoolchildren, etc, and a few have even gotten so nasty as to have committed real crimes. It is a site with a right purpose, and it showed an easy way to present educational information on the net, we have influenced a number of endeavors. It also has made life almost unbearable. I know more than anyone else the need for law enforcement to back up, and stringent and enforced laws to allow me, as an individual to publish fairly on the net. I once blocked one whole international ISP just to keep a group of people off my site for a few weeks till they learned to behave themselves. So I understand the need for regulation. On the other hand, certain folks have played web 'mirror tricks' to keep my work hidden from site while others take credit for and even live off my work. The 'little guy' on the net needs protection, and is critical, to keeping the net free and out from under the control of corporations and governments.

How Free We are Not on the Web

The great problem then, is balance. That is what Congress is debating and has even come down not so greatly on the side of utter net neutrality. The old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it', has been applied in jargon, but some of it really is a little 'broke'. Businesses are collapsing and people's lives and fortunes ruined because they get bullied off the net. While Congress debates a slowdown of P2P services which exhaust bandwidth, some businesses and websites are being bullied off the net by tactics such as we have recently experienced: e.g. sending hackers or teenagers or others to 'sit in' (without permission) on a work, replete with keyloggers to schlep passwords, theft of materials, false FTPs, ruined backups, interference with business with hosting companies, even hijacked or 'kidnapped' servers. Many have found out how to criminally enslave others on the net. Phone calls intercepted, behind the scenes switches, etc, in many ways, if I had to do it all again, though my heart was and is in it, I would have tried a website on 'pretty flowers I have seen', if at all.

A hosting company, or an ISP can both block access to a site or resource, but so can a next door neighbor. While it is an example I've used in the past, a great example is 'Blue Security' an Israeli security company, top of the line, knew Internet security inside out, but they got bombarded by special interests that made it impossible to conduct business. How can we keep the Net free, and yet insist that Pedophiles can't seduce children to leave home, or that Anti-Semities can't shut down Jewish businesses, or that Police in a largely German town can't shut down a pro-Israel website? Where do our rights cross? If I own Czarina Internet Service, and don't want ATT taking over, can I block them to my clients? Can they block me? What if the client knows the policy, but still agrees to the service with limits? Does that violate Net Neutrality? It does if there are no other options. If there are many other options, it is not as great an issue.

Bottom line is this: It is an almost unresolvable problem. Our anarchist spinning top theory has worked, well kind of, but at the same time the net has become even sinister and violent. On the other hand, the idea of an ideologue or government entity controlling massive streams of societal /scientific information is one very scary though as well. Both degenerate over time. Both end in a lack of freedom eventually. I therefore propose, that we shut down the internet altogether, live in an Oil-free and bandwidth free society, and constrain ourselves to the back to nature, little house movement with solar energy, dug wells, and bluegrass music playing in the background. While the Internet was 'Born Free' it has not continued in that vision. ekbest

Repeat Column: Rosh Hashanah: Can these dead bones live?

The following is a column repeated from 2005. Happy Rosh Hashanah. May Your Names be Written in the Book of Life, and may God grant you a peaceful, joyous, and fruitful New Year in 5770, Five thousand seven hundred and 70 years since Creation

Discussion Topic: Aero-Views: What Happens When Your Airfield Has A History

Grisly discovery gives Stuttgart students a lesson on the Holocaust

Shoah in the News

---

In the Holy Scriptures, one of the most poignant passages sees the prophet Ezekiel lifted by the hand of God, taken to see the slain of Israel. The passage is as follows:

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which [was] full of bones,
And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, [there were] very many in the open valley; and, lo, [they were] very dry.
And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.
Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.
Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.
So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.
And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but [there was] no breath in them.
Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the LORD.

In Stuttgart, a day or two after Simon Wiesenthal died, a small group of construction workers was busy digging the ground in Stuttgart Germany, where an airfield was being expanded at a US base. They came first upon two bodies, which were deemed to be from the WWII era, then upon 30 or 40 with still more excavation waiting. While investigations continue, it appears they were Jewish workers enslaved at or from the Nazweiler KZ, or Concentration Camp. All I could think about was that as Wiesenthal, the Bailiff of the Shoah, passed away, his desire to see justice come was vindicated: the sins of Germany and the world can not be completely hidden: what we do to those God loves will be made known.

Stuttgart has as many cities in Germany an unhealthy history from the time of WWII. It was not far from the border of France in Strasbourg where skeletal studies of Dr. Hirt ended: skeletons were chosen before death from Auschwitz and Nazweiler. Nazweiler while not known by many was a "Night and Fog" camp, a camp where dissidents and resistance leaders and Soviet Prisoners of war were kept until death or execution: never to be heard from again. Like those of Belzec, the 9th fort, Babi Yar and many others, even 50 and 60 years later, the graves of Europe and the evidence of what we all did to the people who remind us of God's presence in the world, was unearthed.

Stuttgart was also the city where Niemoller called all of Europe and the World, but particularly Germany to repentance in the "Stuttgart Confession", a brief but beautiful call to Churches around the world to abandon the ways of force and retailiation for the the ways of the Holy Spirit: it is not a hopeless cause, but a divine battle. Some but not all in Germany have repented, the world did gaze backwards these past 60 years, but the lessons are still in dire need of learning, as wars and genocides of massive proportions increase.

This Rosh Hashannah, it is impingent to remember the great work of God in the Jewish People and their preservation across time, bearing the Glory of God when they knew and when they did not, when they wished to and when they did not. If we do not come to terms with what placed those graves there, we will find less joyful Rosh Hashannah's in the future.

A Great New Year can begin with a turn towards tolerance and respect for the "root that bearest us". They are the tree we are grafted into as Christians: we are the adopted children. As the Jews observe their repentance in Yom Kippur, and as we live and walk in ours, the passage above becomes relevant for both Christians and Jews. Though slaughtered and slain, exhausted, weary, persecuted and slandered, when God's winds blow, life will return to them, though it be at a time when all have turned and forgotten. It is the great hope of the future and the reason we as Christians dare not take their place in God's plan and history for granted.

While the literal unearthing of the graves of Israel in Europe continues, it is critical to remember a greater time, respected by both Jew and Christian when the dead rise and God returns to breathe life. They are already back in the Land.

"And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves

Happy Rosh Hashanah

Enemies of the State: How the Times and Logic has Changed in the USA

I am old enough now, to supremely bore my adult son with stories of what life was like when I was young. I've tried it once or twice in this blog, but largely, it was a no-go. Nonetheless, though I grew up in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, there was a basic logic to life, that 'bad guys' get what's coming to them, and 'good guys' , who obey all the rules and work hard, are blessed, content, and get ahead. That is such a basic human assumption, that few of us question it till adulthood, and while we may run into the unjust exceptions to the rule, the logic of it still held basically true even during the turmoil of the Civil Rights struggles, several wars, student protests, economic upheaval and radical demographic change. The 'good-guys/bad-guys rule' generally also held true regarding national issues, until the unraveling of the fabric of the human condition,( which had its inception during the Shoah, and has continued progressively, and lately even geometrically), and the scope of moral relativism and 'disorder' and confusion in the US today, has turned prior unquestioned expectations and beliefs, virtually upside-down.

There are any number of contributing factors, which include:

1. The burgeoning of a Conscienceless Corporate America, esp. the Oil Industry
2. A change in implicit ethics such the foundation of the '10 Commandments' as the base of Law and moral conduct to the unquestioning ethic of 'Moral Relativism'
3. A Scattering to the Wind of Modern Bible Translations and a change in Church structure and definition which brought the estate of the Church into moral vagueness , State-headship, and confusion,
4. The 'blood-guiltiness' of everything from millions of abortions, to our relative unconcern with child abductions and murders, gang warfare, school and university violence, rapes and shootings, massive peace time 'war' dead, and general increases in murder, and 'unattended' murder by organized crime (there is no longer only one 'mob')
5. The influx of illegal immigration and demographic changes which is hardly a Mexican issue only, but now includes persons from all over, including previously non-friendly nations, and a too high percentage of unsavory elements from those nations, including blackmarket elements, drug cartels and organized crime,
6. The breakdown of Police Protection and the effectiveness of the law, and conversely, the radical increase in danger to police at local levels,
7. The breakdown of Civil Rights enforcement, and the concurrent increase of Patriot Act 'liberties' for law enforcement
8. Changes in the concept of Mass Media News and Newspapers to an interactive, talky web event with more 'homeiness' and less soberness, along with papers closing down across the country as large corporations buy them out
9. A re-emphasis on Education away from discipline and skills to psychological and emotional comfort
10. A literal sedition in the construct of 'personhood' and 'institutions'
11. Economic Crisis after Crisis

In the course of all this 're-education' and 'rethinking' of everything from the Law, to Morality, to the 'rightness' of Order, we have I am afraid redefined our Good Guys and our Bad Guys in such a way, that what has been considered the criteria for 'Good guys' in the past, is now erased, and the 'Good Guys' of the past, are becoming 'bad guys' and even 'Enemies of the State', because they wish to maintain the established Social Order.

A Definition of Good Guys

To define 'Good Guys' does not necessarily come down on either side of Party lines. To be a 'good guy' in times past, means that hard work equals success, that authors live off their own work, that people who work at a job get paid for it, that a lifetime of work means retirement benefits and a time of freedom, that teaching children not to lie, cheat or steal produces children who will suceed, that the Police will respond to the hard working and law abiding citizen because he is just that, (though even that should not be the plumbline), that a mortgage means you own a house as long as you continue to make payments, that your identity cannot be shared by another, or that you, and not another party, nor the State makes a decision about whether, for example, you become a surrogate parent or 'donor'.
While all of this may sound a little moronic, since we have all gone along with these guidelines since childhood, present day America is manifesting a very different outlook.

Public Enemies

Our idea in the past, particularly in the age of Terrorism and since 911, is that a terrorist is a very 'bad guy', because he or she wishes through violence to overthrow or severely damage the US. The same is true with 'criminals': people who hurt children are 'bad guys', and 'bad guys' go to jail for those offenses, not 'mental health counseling'. If you are robbed, you call the Police, and they try to catch the guy. If you are assaulted, they take your record and try to find the guy and put him in jail. Simple? It is no longer simple at all, as a new 'economy' takes over the US, in which crime is defined ideologically, instead of along traditional lines. And the people that some in power consider more dangerous than any others, are people who will not go along with grotesque changes in basic human living, which are occuring without any regard to the law, the Constitution, or even a sense of 'right and wrong', but according to whether one will 'bow down' to the Powers that be, simply because they have bullied enough people to be in control.

Persons of Interest

So who is becoming 'persons of interest': One can see on the nightly news, who is being mistreated and thrown into jail. Recently, national headlines noted a Harvard Professor breaking into...his own house: it ended up on the White House lawn. A handicapped man was thrown out of a wheelchair in Tampa because he wouldn't stand up for an officer. Old women are pulled out of cars and tasered because they are too slow in getting out their driver's license, a student at UF, tasered for asking Kerry about the last election. These are only a few examples, though, and as time has passed recently, some that have been treated the most injustly are guilty primarily of ...rioting? theft? murder? No: Free Speech. Consider some examples:

A. The Elderly and Middle Class Americans at Health Care town Meetings

Why is there so much anger at the town hall meetings on Obama's Health Plan? Because fairly average, citizens, have always believed that before massive changes in Social structure could take place, there would be debate, voting, letter writing, etc, and that each of us has a voice to be heard. They get to the meetings are ridiculed, talked down to as though the bourgeois cannot be counted on to assess the benefit of Socialized medicine, and several more liberal commentators refer to them as 'Nazis' etc, who are falsely accusing the Obama plan of including 'Death Panels' instead of listening to what they say. Technically, dear Washington folk, the Nazis were Socialists so they did not have a problem with State intervention in everything including Medicine. Actually, they dismissed Jewish doctors and staff, inserted NSDAP party members who were at least mediocre, and they got, well, bad health care, and medical schools which took 30 years to recover. Now, they shouldn't paint clown makeup on Obama's face just yet, but THEY DESERVE TO BE HEARD. They are angry because they are not being allowed free speech in one of the last places it still exists. Disagree with them? They come from all walks of life, and they don't want panels or government deciding on end-of-life care, or forcing them to 'come to conclusions.' They are angry and they are even being escorted out and arrested for non-violent free speech.

2. Students

Universities used to be, and to some degree still are bastions of free speech, but recently only for the politically correct, which is almost always tainted by a form of liberalism. I have fought concepts of Holocaust Revisionism for 12 years online, but I believe that all ideas have a right to be heard on a college campus. The truth has a life of its own, and it is as wrong to deny David Irving free speech as it is to deny Deborah Lipstadt free speech. Students, though, responsibly have a right to free speech without being arrested by Campus Police. Running overtime on a question, requires, a tap on the shoulder, not tasers and handcuffs. The UF incident is not in anyway the only one. Pro-Palestinianism is currently in vogue, and implies that Israel has become big bad monsters violently displacing the Islamic nations which surround it, and is censored and boycotted every time it defends a border. While Universities general support Jewish concerns, including Yom Shoah days, etc, Jews who stand up openly against Islam, are seen as incindiary. What do they want? Free Speech. If Homosexuals can use state funds to locate at a student Union, can groups promoting traditional Marriages? Or straight lifestyles? Without reprisal. So students questioning politicians (even on their side), Jews promoting Judaic views, or conservatives promoting traditional values (the three range from very liberal to very conservative) are upset about what? Free Speech.

3. Street Preachers and Protestors

Street Preachers and Protestors are not usually in the same category, but I include them here for one reason: they are both espousing views in the open air. Both have a right to peaceful assembly and free speech, and most often, they have satisfied any need for a permit, or are conducting themselves in a way that is not disorderly. I knew a street preacher some years ago in Columbus OH who around Christmas preached on the public sidewalks in downtown Columbus, and the exclusive Mall down there did not want the rough cut fellow handing out gospel messages. They charged him with 'obstructing an entryway' to the Mall which was kind of amusing since the entryway was up stairs from the public sidewalk, and there were multimple wide doors. The charges were later dropped after he had to get an attorney, go to court, etc. They had no right to even ask him to leave: he was in legal limits. They just wanted a more 'upscale' atmosphere in front of the Mall. Their actions, literally robbed him of his right to free speech. Street preachers all over the country are being arrested and bullied by police, park police, etc. They are not part of 'status quo' groupthink which is seeping into the US oversoul. Lest one think it is only the far right , though, environmentalists are facing the same thing: so are anti-war protesters, and those who picket against torture.

4. Bloggers and Journalists

As I sit right now, writing this blog, there is too much 'unhealthy' attention. I constantly have to 'tone things down'. If I were to really write about some things I know are going on, I would have such a war on my hands as to not be worth it (already do), or run the risk of censorship. Someone wanted to know why I thought I had a right to to write this blog, since my degree was in psychology. Here's the answer: the first Ammendment. I can't yell fire where there is none, and I can't call the President a mobster, unless it is proven, but I can write my opinion on ANYTHING, and so can you. (In your own blog, please). To borrow from the phrase, 'Because I Can.' IF it is good or interesting, it flies. IF it is not, it fails. That is the law of the land. Yet somehow, because of some comparisons I have 'suggested' I run the risk of censorship, or even being seen as 'dangerous'. I wish I was dangerous. I would get my way more often. Journalists and Newscasters use to cover ANYTHING. Now, because of fear or corporate sponsorship, they cover the palatable and saleable. A number of years back, a fervent reporter tracked down the 'Syndicate' and wrote a series of articles. He was eventually killed by a firebomb in his car. It seems since then, that organized crime got a sort of free pass, and the result is, well, it has grown to even own many of those resources. So we stay quiet and the US is sold out from under us, so to speak. Free Speech often comes with a price, but when societal mechanisms such as hospitalization or imprisonment for free speech, or encumbering a speaker so greatly that the personal cost to him makes it impossible to speak out, was supposed to be the thing that could not happen in the US. Now it happens regularly. How did journalists and bloggers merely offering informed opinion and information become 'public enemies' needing wiretapping or constant 'perusal'?

5. People demanding rights and reasonable access to the Courts.

These troublemakers? Oh, they are folks who believe that a police department can't come into your house and take something without a legal court order, presented to the owner. Or that a mortgage through a reputable bank could not be seditioned through reconveyance. They raise a stink when someone comes to the door one day and says that there was an error, that someone else owns their house, or that though your records show your steady payments, the bank shows no payment in 6 months. Or they find out that their taxes were not paid by their mortgage company who took the money out. They cry, "We'll take you to court!" and they are sure they will win, only to find out that it is a standard con game and they lost. Yuppie families on the streets for the first time in our history. They are angry, and are threatening nonstop action, and they become 'enemies of the state' because they wanted to keep their homes, and losing them, they were expected to keep quiet.

I could go on and on, but these are only a few examples of the new 'Public Enemies': not the terrorists or Death row inmates who are given attorneys and law libraries to file appeal after appeal, but mothers , for example who get beat up and the police tell the fellow who did it no more than 'move on'. Instead it is the victim who has to move on. Preachers, Hard workers, tax payers, property owners, the elderly and handicapped, Native Americans, and Persons of Conscience: they do not want to 'play the game' to get ahead, but profit off their own ingenuity and hard work. How have we turned it so upside down, that the general populace is getting arrested for voicing outrage and consternation, and terrorists, pedophiles, murderers and others are getting free attorneys, access to the courts, and the homes of the ones who lost them through no fault of their own? Its UPSIDE DOWN, folks, it is so nightmarish now, that to want to study the Bible in a private home, can bring the Feds and Police to the door to 'see who you are'. There has got to be a balance, and fast, or we will find ourselves in the throes of a new and bloody revolution.

What if the "Inglorious B's" had really killed Hitler?

A recent movie among the many holocaust movies of the past 20 years, has an interesting twist: in Tarintino's "Inglorious Bastards", a group of soldiers set out to kill Nazis, and bring down the top leaders of the Third Reich. It is brash and different from most of the portrayals of WWII and the Shoah, bent on a violent catharsis, and feeling free to use History as a malleable fantasy, and whether it is to everyone's taste or not, it poses, like the more historical 'Valkyrie' the question which has haunted the human race since the beginning: Does doing evil to bring about good work? Does the end justify the means? And in this case, what might really have happened if Hitler had been killed?

The Real Plot to Kill Hitler

There really was a plot to kill Hitler, even several plots, though one was particularly well known. Towards the end of the War, the grand imperialism of the Third Reich was unraveling. They had with a demonic progression taken over the major nations of Europe and entered the Ukraine, Greece, Italy and surrounds, and set up Reich control in those nations usually using a shadow or puppet government of nationals. They seemed to many unstoppable. By 1940 though, into '41, even at the heights, many things were beginning to change. Hard winters were taking the Russian front, so hard that war almost ceased. The problem with massive conquest, is that it requires massive resources, and resources were being depleted. Deporting victims to the major Killing Centers, required waylaying trains meant for troops, and building and maintaining the Centers, along with the cost running the camps and quarry mining, road building etc, placed an extra tax on the system apart from moral considerations. The Luftwaffe, increasing air warfare, required more petroleum for fuel than Germany had access to, although what became 'Exxon' was only to happy to supply the need. Mining efforts and chemical production in for example the Auschwitz-Birkenau-Monowitz complex were not completely fueling the 'war effort', as a good portion was being waylaid into not armaments but 'Fuhrer buildings' and other 'Fuhrer' projects designed to create a Utopian 'New Germany'. Citizens were asked to sacrifice instead, but with a large but not limitless army [Wehrmacht] the Reich began to spread itself too thin to meet the unpredictable.

As such, Hitler, Himmler, and others began to turn to delusional pursuits, such as astrological charts, readings, occult 'seers' and non-traditional 'intelligence' as the war and Germany began to slip from their hands. As they became more delusional and grandiose in their thinking, Hitler refused to lessen or cease warfare, much to the consternation of other experienced military leaders in Germany. His hope to have the Wehrmacht and the NSDAP become one entity had not entirely succeeded, and there were many disgruntled in the ranks, and at higher levels including Stauffenberg and Canaris. as well as other leaders in Germany. Bonhoeffer had been a part of discussions on the theological problem of whether it was ever right to take the life of a person, even if they were considered evil and dangerous. Those who had discussed such topics also had been a part of a self-appointed committee of Germans who had elicited the Holy See with Pacelli (Pius XXII) to intervene to bring an early end to the war before Germany and Europe were devoured.

An assassination attempt was made on July 20, 1944 (see Wikipedia: Plot to Kill Hitler, which as the world knows was unsuccessful, but speculation continues, although most, without thinking much, general agree it would have been a good thing to take Hitler out of the world, assuming it would have led to an end to the war, and peace for Europe.

However, the question remains, What would have happened if Hitler had been assassinated? The answers are never fully attainable, but the probabilities are not what everyone expects. There are a number of things that would likely have happened:

1. Germany would have been put in a state of Emergency, with most civil rights suspended, although more likely than not, chaos would have erupted.

2. Goring would have been the immediate successor to the Fuhrership, if a 'mishap' had not occurred creating mistrust. Goring received a message in error that Hitler was killed. He began to posture and make a move to take over the office. Hitler got wind of it, and removed Goring from next in line, which is why a relative unknown, Doenitz took his place in Berlin when his death occurred. But if Goring had taken office before that time what would have happened? Many thought it would be a good move, because Goring, a staunch military man was less of an ideologue (they thought) than Hitler and Himmler, and many thought he would have made more rational decisions regarding the war. But Goring was not a stellar fellow either: he was firmly committed to the 'Judenfrage' or Jewish question being solved 'however', and was a rather heartless and ambition man also, though more in favor with both German and American military personnel. (Note the photos of a happy German-American drinking crowd with Goring the night he taken prisoner).

Goering though was also efficient and sharp edged man. He was present from the beginning and was at the burning of the Reichstag. He was cunning, and like Eichmann, handled the business of mass killings with an amoral systematic approach. The truth is, the war could have escalated or ended: it is difficult to guess which. Since Hitler was such a charismatic demagogue to the German people at the time, till the nearing end, he commanded national obedience either out of fear or loyalty: it is unclear whether Goering could have done that. Further, Goebbels, the real 'brains' behind the control of the German people through propaganda and information control, was not a friend of Gorings (or from his notes seemingly any of the top Nazis), and while Goebbels surrendered to the 'glory of the Fuhrer' his notes show that his loyalty was somewhat tainted for a lack of respect for the Fuhrer, as there is an 'air' of intellectual superiority on Goebbels' part.

3.Several nations and entities were vying for Germany. If Hitler had fallen, there probably would have been an even greater emphasis on air wars and 'finishing up' the extermination, but amidst chaos and faltering control of information. Military men and civilians have a natural disdain for one another in all nations, and the rise to leadership of a strong life-military figure, would have added a further burden to the crumbling society.

4. If the assassination attempt had been successful, Bonhoeffer would probably still be alive. Most do not know that he turned down a chance to escape even while in prison. On the hand, just the opposite might have occurred, he could have been shot down instantly in an effort to take office without opposition.

5. Turmoil would have occurred in the higher echelon of the NSDAP and the Third Reich. Hitler's 'Inner Circle' contained many different types of men: Ribbentrop was from 'high society' given to the finer things in life who enjoyed the British lifestyle, and was often given gifts and even property in his negotiations. On the other hand, men such as Heydrich and Goring while not without training or culture, were military men, and jealousies and divisions plagued the 'High Command' and 'Inner Circle' especially at the end of the war. Not everyone wanted Goring to take over at all. It is unlikely with the charismatic Hitler gone, that the division would have done more than grow.

6. Goring had he taken over (or even another) while it may seem would have shortened the war, might actually have prolonged it, like Speer did in streamlining production. Even a six month lengthening would have given time for the V2 Rockets from Japan to be put into place, which would have wasted completely major European cities.

7. Goebbels so tightly ran and controlled information systems in Germany, deferring to Hitler openly, but not always behind the scenes, that his tight control on propaganda and therefore the German domestic scene would not so much have been compromised, but would have possibly been run far more independently and created more division. Towards the end, even in the bunker, it was Goebbels, more than Himmler, Goring or any other who was constantly with Hitler, even dying with him if the accounts from the last days in Berlin are true.

8. Goring was an anti-Semite, no doubt, and a Nazi ideologue, but less than Hitler, and more focused on a worldly, pragmatic war and conquest than establishing a neo-pagan New Germany. (note than even the opposing theologians such as Barth referred to it as neo-paganism). That also would have caused division as Himmler saw himself as the reincarnation of Heinrich of the Second Reich, and was deeply entrenched in a collation of 'New Age' ideas and concepts paralleling masonry, although the Reich condemned it. It is hard to tell which way it might have gone, but there would have been a vying for position, control and ideology.

9. The US would probably have welcomed Goring over Hitler in some ways, since toward the end Hitler regarded no nation nor power in the world other than his own. He felt no need to do more than nod at such things as the Geneva Convention, and behind the scenes disregarded all thought of human or international boundaries or rights. Goring was a little more practical, seeing the need for Germany to continue, and a little less delusional. Photos appearing at the end of the war, after Goring's capture (he civilly surrendered), show US military men sitting in tents around tables with Goring laughing and drinking. There was a sort of paradoxical regard for the enemy-Commander in Chief, although Jewish Virtual Library notes that by the end at Nuremberg Goring was:

adopting a pose of self-conscious heroism motivated by the belief that he would be immortalized as a German martyr.

He was a forceful personality even at the end, dictating to others and the court at Nuremberg in general and utter disdain for repentance or 'backing down' from what he considered still the right of Germany which lay in ruins.

Means to An End Theology

The great question of theologians and even in that day of politicians and Military leaders was whether assassination and even war were ever fully 'justified'. In the early part of the twentieth century, the emergence of the 'Social Gospel' became eminient, with proponents such as Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer, and others in Protestantism, and efforts on Racial equality in Catholic thinking, e.g. Msgr La Farge of NY, in which Fundamental doctrine was either laid aside or overlaid with an emphasis of 'action' in Christianity mostly reflecting a liberal bias, though a kindly one of feeding and housing the poor, working against social injustice and racial inequality. Bonhoeffer was somewhat more of a 'believer' in the main tenets of Christianity than many of the 'Social Gospel' advocates who were influenced by certain German schools of thought such as 'Higher Criticism', and which emanated from US Seminaries such as U of Chicago and Union Theological in NY, where Bonhoeffer and others had attended. (Niebuhr taught Bonhoeffer at Union). Two general questions arose at the time, much discussed:

1. Is there a Just War? and
2. Are 'evil' actions such as killing or assassination ever justified to bring about good?

The great debate took place at the inception of the 'Social Gospel' because they were mostly pacifist, decrying war in all its forms, but as Hitler's actions were more and more revealed, even pacifists had to ask, "Is it right to stay out of a war and let evil have its way?"

The problem for Judaism and Christianity is not new. What the New Testament teaches about war is very problematic because there were times when Jesus taught self-defense:

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

and times he did not:

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

These passages though are not really contradictory, for while the first passage advocates the 'buying of a sword' the second shows the consequence. The Law is not betrayed, so the debate is more, though the Messiah taught utter non-violence in even laying down one's life for another, even for an enemy,

Mat 5:44 -But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

although Jesus also said that He had come not to bring peace, but a sword.

" Mat 10:34- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Jesus also though never harmed a soul, and even healed servants and children of noblemen and a Centurion, and Malchus, one of the arresting guards in Gethsemane.

For the Christian then, and in the light of Hitler and the massive loss of life the question became when should one lift up a sword, when failing to do so, would mean evil would continue, especially since they were killing his people, the Jews.
It is akin to the argument of whether an intruder who threatens a son or daughter should be shot, and most Christians, even through the centuries have allowed for self-defense, though not all.

Knowledge of God's Ways vs Human Reason

The real dilemma through the century for Christian pacifists which we should all technically be, is outside the realm of human reason, such as was the question of whether Hitler should have been assassinated. Human reason is limited and often short term. Human reason sees an unjust action and seeks to rectify it, which is not wrong. Likewise, in WWII, the British saw the need to 'take out' Heydrich who was killing many by assassination, which not only did not stop the war, but brought about the razing of the village of Lidice, and pronounced going forward of "Operation Reinhard" to systematically exterminated all the Jews of Europe. Yet Heydrich was out to kill 'all the Jews of Europe', and succeeded at about 1.5 million deaths by the Einsatzgruppen. So, was the assassination 'right'?

Divine reason is greater than our own, for God sees the whole picture. I have likened it to a man in a maze. God sits above the maze, and can tell the man which way to go in the maze and get out successfully. If the man listens to God, he is free of the encumbrance. If he chooses his own logic, fearing God will misguide him, or not want what is best for him, or if he merely sees his own logic as superior, he either dies in the maze, prolongs the agony, or at best gets out with trouble. Herein then lies, a great vexation for many people's faith when questions arise regarding a 'Just War' or a 'righteous assassination'. The truth is, without wisdom, and only with logic, we cannot tell the end of our actions, even when to do nothing seems to mean doing evil.

I am not advocating always 'doing nothing' and just committing all of life to the wind to see which way it will blow. For the Christian at least, the first course of action is not protest or killing, or overthrow. The first course is prayer and seeking first the Kingdom of God. Secularists will shiver at what I am suggesting because they never consider God in the human condition at all. And though this is a bold thought, there might even be a one in a million time when a servant of God would be called to take a life, though we are commanded generally not to. David took life in defense of Israel, and had he not, had he and Joshua and Moses just given Israel to the Philistines and all the 'ites' there might never have continued the line of Messiah and Salvation. Was it right to take those lives? At the end of David's life, his heart's desire to build the temple of God was not allowed because of the blood on David's hands. His son Solomon though, with hardly more than skirmishes was allowed to build the Temple. The teaching is clearly not to kill, generally not even in war, especially if it is not a just war, but God will not be put in a box.

If we were all equipped to see the future then military and political reasoning would work. In the case of Hitler, though and Heydrich, while we were satisfied in the heart when both men died having maimed and killed so many innocents, so many of those God called 'Chosen', the purposeful assassination of Heydrich brought more harm, and the potential assassination of Hitler could have.

The War ended whether secularists can handle it or not, when repentance came and the Church and the Jews prayed, though for a season, neither thought their prayers were heard. The winters which froze battle lines and exhausted Hitler's resources, were an act of God that no army could have brought about. We like to think it was America entering the war, but as the US entered the war, the Japanese increase rocketry and weapons production, and while it was not without effect, the bloodiest war in history did not end entirely by human effort. While some may try to characterize this opinion as naive or uneducated, it is precisely the opposite: no human effort however well analyzed , planned, and carried out can guarantee a certain future. The Divine element is the one forever necessary, which men will not seek.

The world today is filled with "Inglorious B's" some good and some as sinister as Hell. If Hitler indeed died in 1945, the world has not been without other fuhrers, each certain that brute force and cunning will bring about an end. They never do, and we never seek divine answers. Entropy has its way until we do.

Why The Nazis Were Troubled by the Book of Romans: PartII

The Rabbi Paul Teaches That God Hath Not Cast Away Those He Foreknew

There is such a thing in Christian doctrine that is referred to as 'The Mystery of the Jews'. Now, I have noted over the years that a few are mysterious indeed, but this 'Mystery' is a metaphysical truth or doctrine regarding the Jews in Scripture, including who they are, their Chosen or sanctified status before God, their role in history and God's sovereign plan, their relationship with God and his creation, their role in end time events, and their centrality in God's Salvation. 'The Mystery of the Jews' is not an often taught doctrine anymore, although if it were it would immediately solve any number of doctrinal debates and questions, and probably alleviate most Christian Anti-Semitism, although that rubric is the oxymoron of centuries.

We have already discussed in Part one of this series, that the Nazis at least in several recorded cases arrested or censored pastors and clergy teaching of the Book of Romans and word from Berlin was that Paul was not the excellent character Jesus was but was an introverted self-deprecating rabbi who sought Jewish influence in the New Testament, so while the Gospels were allowed under reinterpretation, the Epistles were not banned, but were 'discouraged' as being wrought with the taint of Jewish, rabbinical teaching. (Goebbels)

We have also noted that two particular doctrines referred to as 'the Jew Within' a twisting of the teaching of Paul regarding the sin nature, and the Romans 13 teaching of obedience to Civil Authority, were retained with a great deal of 'nazification', but most of the Book of Romans, particularly passages in Chapters 8 to 12, were considered detrimental to the German conscience and understanding of the Scriptures.

In a meeting in the 1930s of the German Christian Church, the 'DC', a sign hung over the balcony in large letters declaring:

"The German Christian reads the Gospel in the [light of] the Third Reich" ["Der Deutsche Christen liebst das Evangelium im Dritten Reich"]

The Nazis originally did not intend to eradicate the Christian Church or Bible (not at first), but they wanted a New Theology that would be 'Judenrein' as well as a New European Order. The Book of Romans though, had a peculiarly Jewish nature and emphasis. It taught a few basic tenets that even early Christians and others were concerned with regarding the Jews, for some had accused Paul and the early Christians of teaching that God was finished with the Jews. Early Christianity though was not seen either as a religion or even a separate thing from Judaism, it is referred to in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles as a sect of Judaism.

Act 24:5 For we have found this man [a] pestilent [fellow], and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

The 'sect' of the Nazarenes was controversial, but there was also plenty of controversy between two other sects, the Pharisees and Sadducees. Zealots are also considered a 'sect', and while not all were favored by mainstream Judaism, they were indeed all Jewish. Still, when a great number of teachers including Paul and a few who with Paul had been raised with Herod the Tetrarch went north to Antioch,

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

reaching out significantly for the first time to partly Gentiles (in line with prophecy), a number were concerned they were 'hellenizers' some began to question whether they were seeking to replace Judaism with a Greek emulation. [note 1] Paul in wisdom puts an end to misconceptions and sets in inspired 'stone' the doctrine of the Jews and their place in God's sovereign plan, and reaffirms the 'Everlasting Covenant', and a slumbering Israel, providential suspended until the prophecies of the 'fullness of the Gentiles' be brought in.

The Epistle to the Romans Troubles the Nazis

Why would Romans so trouble the Nazis? There are a number of explicit teachings which opposed Nazi teaching with such clarification and authority, that the Gleichschaltung for the Church would never have worked had it been brought forefront. Among those teachings are:

1. The Things of God belong to and are of the Jews

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

2. God has Not Replaced the Jewish Nation
This tenet is self evident as to why the Nazis did not want it taught: they were seeking to not only replace but eradicate the Jewish people in Germany and Europe and to erase every bloodline and influence. While it is not the focus here, the reason had to do with their perception of the Jews as a 'root race' which was a remnant of an earlier inferior race, a Semitic, 'equatorial' people. Implicit in thinking at the top of a 'Herrenvolk' or Master race, was the reemergence of a 'Hyperborean' people, who would usher in a human utopia. 'Polar' people were superior to 'Equatorial' people, and former root races were inferior to emerging ones. (depending on the variation). (2) The Jews therefore in the eyes of the Third Reich, lost out. Paul though, taught:

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

It was Paul's very declaration of his 'Jewishness' that offended the Nazis enough to refer to him as degenerate. It was their fear that his teaching of 'dying to self' and the pre-eminence of the Jew would lead to the demoralization and defeat of the German people.

3. Salvation is of the Jews

The Messiah came from the line of the Jews. The seed promised since the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:16); the covenant of Abraham (Gen 15) and later Isaac and Jacob, and preserved even through division and exile. This was not a comfortable doctrine to the Nazis, who were attempting to 'Aryanize' Jesus, such as attempts by Grundman to change his nativity to an Aramaic mother and Roman soldier father (3). It is Jesus though in John 4:22 who teaches

"...salvation is of the Jews"

And the apostle Paul teaches that Salvation is not only of the Jews, and for the Jews first, but the 'provoking of jealousy' regarding it:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

The 'new doctrine' of the Deutsche Christen would have been neatly negated if the whole of Romans was regularly taught.

4.Boasting Not Against the Jews: The Eminence of the Jew, and the 'Grafting In': The Root Beareth Thee.

So salient is the teaching of the 'first place' of the Jews, even while God turns for a time and season to the Gentiles to fulfill prophecy

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

that all of the 'sect of Nazarenes' so to speak are cautioned not to ever even dream of boasting of replacing the Jews 'whom he foreknew', or to see the 'new birth in Christ (Messiah)' as a replacement of the everlasting Covenant:

Rom 11:16- For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.
Rom 11:17- And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18-Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Note that Paul in Romans refers to the Jews as

1. The firstfruit, that is holy
2. The Root that is Holy
3. The true Olive tree, vsi the gentiles described as 'wild olive tree' in need
of graffing (grafting) into the tree
4. The root that bearest the branches

Some interpret some of what Paul says as negative toward the Jews, but it is never so. He speaks both about the Jews who turn away, and about the 'remnant' in an election of grace, and about not a 'casting away' forever, but a suspension which results in the end in the fulness of all things coming in by them:

Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?

This passage is of critical importance even in today's teaching of Romans, due to several glaring errors which many hold without examining the Scriptures. Some very large churches, even TV ministries hold to something called 'Dominion' theology or 'Replacement' Theology. Gary North is a major proponent, as are Worldwide Church of God, and Lester Sumrall, the theological 'father' of Rod Parsley who teach the 'replacement' of the Church for the Jews. Other faiths teach versions of this doctrine also: the Roman Catholic Church still sees Jerusalem as their manifest destiny, not the Jews', and many ignorantly implicitly hold to the church being 'new' and the Jews being 'old' as in New and Old Testament, without ever understanding what a testament or covenant is or why they are not independent of one another, an echo of an ancient heresy of marcionism.

5. & 6. In Whole or in Part : Blindness and Salvation

I had a pastor many years ago who teach as some do that the Jews could no longer be saved, adding 'at least in this dispensation'. This is a serious misunderstanding of the Epistle to the Romans and other passages regarding salvation. Some 'dispensationalists' argue that the Jews can be saved again in the end of time but only by a combination of obeying the Law and Grace, a position referred to as hyperdispensationalism. Almost all of these folks quote one passage regularly:

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The blindness referred to is also referred to as slumber. Of all the passages in scripture though this is one used wrongfully most often to refer to Jews essentially being 'disinherited' from the Salvation of God, an unlikely proposition since 'salvation is of the Jews.'. The one portion almost all skip over are the words,
"in part"- the early church was almost entirely Jewish, until Paul and Peter and others went north, and then out into Macedonia, Greece and Italy, and soon after Northern Africa, Asia and up into Europe. Even then, most of the leaders were Jewish, certainly saved and not 'blinded', hence the doctrine of election applied to the remnant:

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

While the Jews are probably not happy with either position, nonetheless, these scriptures mishandled have led to varying doctrinal positions on the Salvation of the Jews and whether they are to be confronted regarding the Gospel, for some who misuse the passage argue that one shouldn't bother as no Jews can be saved, and others argue that salvation can occur outside of Christ, a heretical position, and others argue they must be confronted first, as the apostles always, even well into the first and second century always went first to the Jews with the Gospel, and to the Synagogue if possible. Even Jesus noted

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

and that is the command in Matthew 10:6.

The issue is not though one of preference or personal concept, but of what the Scripture teaches: the Deutsche Christen laid heavy emphasis on the Jews being beyond Salvation, following the footsteps of Martin Luther who early in his campaign of grace went first to the Jews, and then when rebuffed turned violently anti-Semitic urging their ousting from communities and the burning of Synagogues. (See The Jews and their Lies). The Nazis notoriously followed some of the same rigor and procedure advocated by Luther whose great contribution of revitalizing the doctrine of Grace did not seem to be accompanied by any for the Jews in his latter years. What is important is that while the Jew in the Word of God is chosen, bears God's Glory, and is the Vine of Messiah, the covenants, promises, and oracles of God, that he is not to be seen as differently disposed to Salvation in any time period. The 'Slumbering' referred to in Romans is a descriptive process, a partial setting aside but NOT REJECTION , an 'anesthetizing' as one would do with surgery while the Gentiles were added in in fulfillment of prophecy, but even during that process, 'whosoever will' still stands.

7. Christian Responsibility: Mercy to the Jew

I suspect the most troubling aspect of the Book of Romans to the Nazis though, was that taught in its entirety, it contains a call to the Christian responsibility of Mercy to those Jews in 'The Slumber' , counting that our access to Salvation, Messiah, the Word of God and the promises and Covenant of God, come in essence by first their existence and 'root' and secondly by their suffering. 'Boast not against the Branches' is not only an admonition not to brag about a favored place over theirs, but an admonition to fear God and understand that they are still His people, in an everlasting Covenant, and He is not finished at all with them, intending to keep both earthly and heavenly Covenants with them. Zedlacher ended up in prison and beaten by the Nazis for two major emphases:
1. The Correct teaching about the Jews and our relation to the Jews, and
2. The Admonition to Mercy to the Jews being a duty and calling.

This is not mere conjecture; consider the following passage:

Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The Christian calling in general is mercy towards all. The Greek 'elleo' refers to action of having mercy or compassion or aiding the afflicted. This is not the disdain found in so many churches today who seem to have a xenophobia regarding the Jews, who even if they do not hate them are terribly uncomfortable around them. Rather than the promotion of fables about Central Worldwide Committees of Jews trying to conquer and destroy, or neo-Nazi doctrines such as the aryanization of Jesus and reinterpretation of the Scriptures to fit Reich agendas and Racial Science goals, or 'replacement theologies', hyperdispensationalism, theories of culpability for Christ's death, or the holocaust as a 'purging' to bring Israel back, none of which are scriptural, the right teaching of Romans calls for an understanding that we are in fact a sect of Judaism, though the gentiles and politicians have had their field day erasing that basic truth.

The Seditious Act of Teaching Romans

When Zedlacher, Bonhoeffer and others taught Romans, they brought forward to German Churches, at least the Confessing Church, a duty and responsibility to and for the Jewish people, a call to mercy, and a teaching regarding the Jewish nation that was opposite to the Endlosung or Final Solution to the 'Judenfrage' or Jewish Question. Thus, the teaching of Romans undid everything the Reich was attempting to instill in German minds and hearts. When Zedlacher was arrested, a group of church leaders pleaded for his right treatment and release. Part of that letter contains their defense:

"Zedlacher was specifically criticized for using Paul's Epistle to the Romans Verse 11 as a text for his lesson. It is indisputably asserted in the Epistle to the Romans, Verse 11, that the choice of Israel by god is unalterable. Zedlacher was only acting in accordance with his duties as a Bible teacher when he passed on to his pupils what is written in the Bible. The same applies to the assertions for which the Gestapo criticize Zedlacher---namely, that Jesus was not an Aryan but a Jew, and that despite Reichminister Kerrl's contrary opinion, it cannot be denied that Christ's sonship from God is the fundamental dogma of Christianity from the standpoint of a confessing evangelical Christianity."

Karl Barth, a formidable exiled leader of the Confessing Church noted for his leadership in rejecting the oath of Nazi loyalty in the House of God, and formulation of the Barmen Declaration of the Lordship of Christ, not Hitler, was widely known in the 1920s in Germany for his publication on the Epistle to the Romans, though his emphasis was not on the doctrine of the Jews in his 1919 volume. Interestingly though, among the scriptures quoted in the Barmen declaration in support of the stand of the Confessing Church, there were almost no direct references to the Jews or the Book of Romans. I suspect, that had Romans been preeminent in the protest of the opposition, it was volatile enough to have been a call of resistance. By the end of the war, the few who would stand were deeply persecuted, ostracized, imprisoned, beaten, blown up, exiles and even killed for the stands they did take.

The history of the Bible during the Third Reich has not been fully researched nor written yet, but the history of the dealings with the Book of Romans, will tell a story about what happened in the Church and Christian heart and mind during the Shoah. Clearly Christian rescuers were deeply influenced by the teaching of Romans in laying down their lives to save Jewish lives. (See, e.g. Le Chambon)
Even among the Jesuits, with their shadowy history of influence and liaisons during the Shoah, the resisters among them such as Fontoynont, cited the Epistle of Romans in their complaint against the encroachment of a neo-paganistic interpretation of Scripture, quoting Bernard in noting that whoever touched the Jews, touched the apple of God's eye.' (6)

The teaching of the Book of Romans was enough to meet with violence and censorship. The Epistle to the Romans, properly taught, though is enough to equip the modern Christian with a correct understanding of the mystery and doctrine of the Jews, in a way that so totally negates Anti-Semitism and false doctrine, that no political potentate use it again even partially to twist the allegiance of mainstream Christianity. Hitler, it is well known, quoted Scripture when it behooved him to bring about his agenda, but it is also now known that in the end, he had no place for the church in his New Germany, at least not in any received form. When twisted and used in defense of blind obedience, such as the misuse of Romans 13, it can bring about a bondage and form of 'führerprinzip', in which personal moral sense and responsibility is quelched by passing it on up the line and virtually all evil is possible. When twisted, it led to a hatred of the Jew so intense that sin and being Jewish were equated as one. When OMITTED, it led to an entire nation feeling they had no responsibility to the Jew, and that the Jew was 'subhuman' and 'vile', rather than the 'root that bearest thee'. A Bible Study, that forgotten thing in this day and hour, can be the greatest weapon against both hate crimes, genocide, wrongful global policies, and millions of believers duped into believing they must unquestioningly go along with an evil authority on issues which contradict the Word of God. A Bible Study on the Book of Romans, verse by verse, focusing on the Doctrine of the Jews, can keep the Church a healthy place in an unhealthy nation. ekbest



_________________________________________________________________
Note 1: Note that while many church historians mark 'Antioch' as the birthplace of Christianity, the major headship of the Church even in the early years remained in Jerusalem and even those of Antioch, including Paul, went regularly back to the saints in Jerusalem for worship, feasts, benevolence, etc. It was in part a healing of Israel, from the times of the civil war when Rehoboam and Jeroboam split the twelve tribes, Jeroboam going north, setting up parallel worship for the ten tribes who followed; Rehoboam the son of Solomon staying South in Jerusalem and Judah with the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, retaining true headship and worship in the Temple of God.
2 Taha, Abir Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman--Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine; Authorhouse: Bloomington IN; 2005
3. Kirkley Best, E. "Jesus in the Eyes of the Nazis", in Nazi Beliefs: Shoah Education Project Web: Http://shoaheducation.com/jesusintheeyesofthenazis.html
4.Cited in Mosse, George L. Nazi Culture: Intellectual Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich Grosset & Dunlap: NY, 1966; from: Deutsche Kirchendokumente: Die Haltung der Bekenneden Kirche in dritten Reich, compiled by W. Jannasch (Zollikon-zurich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G.: 1946, pp.44-47.
5. The Barmen Declaration: http://www.shoahrose.com/barmen.html
6. LaCouture, Jean. Jesuits: A Multibiography Counterpoint: Liturgical Press: Minnesota, 1995.

Why The Nazis Were Troubled by the Book of Romans: PartII

Why the Book of Romans Troubled the Nazis

While he was certainly not alone in being a clergy member persecuted by the National Socialists, a Pastor named Zedlacher was arrested not just for breaking Nazi policy, nor for protesting Hitler's treatment of the Jews, the Church, or the mentally retarded and others, but for doing something Lutheran pastors had done for years: teach the Book of Romans, just as it had always been taught since the first days of the apostles.


The Book of Romans, written by the apostle Paul, or Saul of Tarsus, was to the Christians of Rome (Rms 1:7) around the year A.D. 56-57, from Corinth. (bible.org).
The book encompasses more than one topic, including morality, the Plan of Salvation, the Civil duties of the Christian and the State, divine election, and a number of chapters focusing on the Mystery of the Jews. The Epistle was written toward the end of Paul's journeys and life, although the exact means and place of Paul's death is debated, ranging from dying in Spain during a later journey to being executed in Rome by Nero after being blamed for the the fire which consumed Rome. Whatever the true account is, the Book of Romans has been a mainstay of Christianity from the beginning of baseline doctrine, and both a blessing and troubling to heads of State for just as long.

This was no less true for the Third Reich, which in its twisted attempts to sedition the Bible towards their political/social aims and objectives, both used the book of Romans in part to garner 'befehlsnotstand' or blind obedience to the State and which also sought to erase the effect of teaching in Romans particularly about the Jews.

Paul and the Nazis

Grundman, a theologian and cohort of Gerhard Kittel, was a man fundamentally responsible for changes in doctrinal and theological education in the Third Reich as well as being a member of Kittel's subcommittee of the Reichinstitut fur Geshichte des Neuen Deutschland , the Reich Institute for the History of the New Germany, which dealt with the 'Judenfrage' or "Jewish question". Grundman also authored a number of passages in Kittel's Lexicon, the 'Worterbuch', for the New Testament, and was the man fundamentally responsible for the concept of the 'Aryan Jesus': a heretical change in viewpoint of Jesus Christ.

Goebbels, Kittel, Grundman and others began to redefine and interpret, or perhaps more accurately 'morph' traditional Lutheran doctrine and a basic understanding of the Gospels and rest of the Scriptures into an acceptable form for the Reich which would not contradict Reich teachings. While Jesus was retained as an example of the Aryan prototype of a 'Superman' and reinterpreted as having Aryan/Greek lineage via his speaking 'Aramaic' and living in the mixed Northern area of Israel near what was before Hazor, in Galilee and Nazareth, Paul was much more ostracized doctrinally and relegated to the level of a degenerate Jewish influence on the gospels, a self-effacing, introverted rabbi who was not in line with the thinking of the 'New Germany' which the Reich sought to bring about.

By those who wished for an untainted and pure 'Nazi' doctrine in the German Church (DC), Paul, then in all his epistles was at the very least 'suspect' and was thought by the worst to be leading the German spirit into degeneration and a lack of national sense and pride, by teaching such decadent concepts as

"...for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. Phil 1:21"

It was then in this general context, that Paul, suspect anyway in his teaching and jewish 'infusion' in the Scriptures was allowed but frowned upon, save for a few passages. Among the writings which the Nazis retained in allowable teachings were passages such as Romans 13 on the Civic responsibility of Christians to the then Roman State, and the teachings of the 'Old Man vs the New Man', although both were horribly twisted to meet the approval of the DC and its theologians. Most notably though, as Zedlacher and other pastors discovered too late, it was the teaching on the 'Mystery of the Jews' in Romans that the Nazis found so deeply troubling as to cause the arrest and persecution of pastors who taught it at all, or at least in a non-compliant state.

Acceptable Passages the Nazis 'morphed'.

While there are numerous 'reinterpretations' of doctrines by the Deutsche Christen, two that are eminent are that of Romans 13, and the teaching of the sin nature (e.g Rms 6:6).

Romans 13
Romans 13 begins with the following passage:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinace of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

The passage goes on to talk about being afraid of the 'power' and declares that the rulers or authority of a nation are 'ministers' of God, meaning not clergy, but powers that retain the order of the world appointed by God. Now, this passage is a standard teaching of Christianity, that the State in which one dwells, has God-given authority, and we are to obey that authority as one obeys God. Drive the speed limit, following building codes, live out the Ten Commandments, etc, are all examples of divine appointments of the authority of civil law which we are to obey. For all of Christianity, though there is a constant dialogue regarding obedience when the laws of man, of the State contradict or conflict with the laws and obedience to God as they so often have in history. Zealots who tore the eagle off the Temple in the first century, Christians who refused to toss coins or light incense to Emperors, or even modern day pastors who refuse State registration of churches have all encountered those times when to obey God meant to disobey the State. The Nazis, however left no option for that latter issue.

Romans 13 was used by the Nazis to inculcate the perfect obedience Germans were to strive for. Bonhoeffer, who with Niemoller and others resisted the DC, wrote

The church has three possible ways it can act against the state. First, it can ask the state if its actions are legitimate. Second, it can aid the victims of the state action. The church has the unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering society even if they do not belong to the Christian society. The third possibility is not just [to] bandage the victims under the wheel, but to jam a spoke in the wheel itself. [narrated by Klaus Maria Brandauer: excerpt- 2003 documentary film, Bonhoeffer}

However while Hitler applied the tenets of Rms 13 to bring about the 'führerprinzip' in the German Church and people, and while Robert Ley declared:

"The Party lays total claim to the soul of the German people...and hence we demand the last German, whether Protestant or Catholic..."

There was nonetheless fervent opposition, and the observation early that Hitler and his men meant to replace the Christian Church and headship of Christ with 'another Gospel' and the headship of the State:

To those Church circles that raised their voices in protest this totalitarian structure of the Nazi regime presented a double threat to the very existence of the Church. First, the pseudo-religious and pseudomessianic character of Nazism was calculated to weaken the Church from within and to mislead the Christian community, especially its youth. It became increasingly clear to these circles that the Nazi racial doctrine - which Hitler and also the "Deutsche Christen" had called positive Christianity in their first formulation as early as 5 May 1932 - constituted a kind of additional gospel of messianic redemption that ostensibly strengthened Christianity as an institution and as a religion of revelation. Secondly, this pseudo- messianic and pseudo-religious authority that the Nazi regime arrogated to itself was able by means of its repressive measures to curtail the influence of the Church and even to reduce it to silence. This danger was perceived at an early date by the "Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche" in its Botschaft (Part I, par 2, 5) adopted by the Conference held in Berlin-Dahlem 19-20 October 1934, which stated: "The National Church that the Reich's bishop has in view under the slogan: One State - one People - one Church, simply means that the Gospel is no longer valid for the German Evangelical Church and that the mission of the Church is delivered to the powers of this world.... The introduction of the Fuehrer principle into the Church and the demand of unconditional obedience based upon this principle are contrary to the Word of Scripture and bind the officials of the Church to the Church regiment instead of to Christ... [3]-(Manybooks: The Grey Book by Johan M. Snoek)

Romans 13 is significantly misinterpreted two ways: one is to believe that it teaches blind obedience without regard to even right or wrong or the laws/Word of God, and the other is to believe that it is so flexible that a Christian is not obligated to the State. Romans 13 is the most misused passage by despotic governments and churches to bring people into line with their objectives often to the point of dismissing the headship of Christ, or by groups who take out of context both Romans 13 and the statement by Jesus "then are the Children of the Kingdom free", his response when asked if taxes should be paid. It should be noted that he also taught to 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's". Romans 13, then was used and referred to by the Nazis to support the Führerprinzip wherein if one obeys regardless of the moral quality of the event or question, then the responsibility for the action rests on the next 'lordship' up, the next higher step in authority, ad infinitum until the Fuhrer is reached. This removes all moral responsibility from the German citizenry called to obeyed in heinous ways, and misapplied, uses the passage to put authority before moral sense.

Romans 13 then was acceptable to the Nazis in verses 13:1-8, the edicts to obey the State as divinely ordained, but Hitler had no thought of sharing his 'lordship' with Christ or anything or one else:

Fosdick noted Hitler's declaration in On Being Fit to Live With: Sermons on Post-war Christianity

We want no God but Germany

And Bonhoeffer, the Confessing Church pastors and others such as Barth in writing the Barmen Declaration upon the requirement of an absolute loyalty oath, declared what sounds odd now, but was oft repeated by resistors: "No Fuhrer but Christ", i.e. No Lord but Christ. Indeed the Barmen Declaration of those who opposed Hitler declared:

We reject the false doctrine that there could be areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ but to other lords, areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

3. "Let us, however, speak the truth in love, and in every respect grow into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together." Eph. 4:15-16

and

....We reject the false doctrine that, apart from this ministry, the Church could, and could have permission to, give itself or allow itself to be given special leaders [Führer] vested with ruling authority.[Barmen Declaration]

Equating the Jew with the Sin Nature
Another portion of Romans the Nazis accepted with re-interpretation, and a major fallacy of the Nazi paradigm over the doctrine of the church was the equating of the 'Jew' with the sin nature. In Christian doctrine, it is taught that when we come to the Messiah and receive the Holy Spirit, the earnest of Redemption, we enter into New life: there is an 'old man' and a 'new man', the old is under the mastery of sin and death, the new under the mastery of Christ. The old man is equated with sin and corruption and the unregenerate state.

2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

And in Romans, the relationship of sin to the 'old man' is noted.

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

The Nazis however infused the doctrine of the 'Old Man' of sin and corruption with the 'Jew' and an earlier root race. Since the 'old man' is unregenerate, and the Jew is unregenerate in their eyes, the twisted logic is that the 'old man' is the 'Jew Within'. In Nazi doctrine of the DC, when a believer comes to Messiah and is made new, into a 'new man', he 'eradicates' the 'Jew Within'. While it is only a movie, the doctrine is alluded to in a movie called the Ninth Day, the story of Father Jean Bernard, who is allowed out of Dachau to attend a funeral, but must return or his fellow prisoners will be killed. In a discussion asking him to recant his beliefs during his brief time out by a Nazi official, the discussion alludes to the eradication of the 'Jew Within'. Further indication is in the following passage:

...the Jew still abides within us, and that as long as we have not annihilated the Jew within ourselves, our survival will remain in the balance...cited in The Cult of art in Nazi Germany By Eric Michaud, Janet Lloyd

the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) cited at http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

"The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit as the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time." - Jackel, Hitler's Worldview, p. 52; from a speech at Nuremberg, January 13, 1923

This is a serious heretical position though one of the parts of Romans that the Nazis accepted once morphed into Reich acceptability. Christian doctrine was from the beginning a sect of Judaism, even according to the Book of Acts, and in no way referred to a Jewish nature replaced by a Christian or any other nature. It refers to a new nature which accompanies eternal life, or better is integral with it, which eradicates the curse of the Fall of man, not Jewish remnants of a former 'self'. The theologians of the Third Reich attempted to make the 'second birth', the idea of being 'born again' into the newness of life, into the Kingdom of God, instead a purging of a Jewish nature or spirit, which is never taught anywhere in the New Testament.

Since this blog has become somewhat lengthy, we will continue with Part II of "Why the Book of Romans Troubled the Nazis" and examine why so many were persecuted and imprisoned or worse for teaching it, and whether there are implications for today's political climate. ekbest

"Useless Feeders": National Health Care, End of Life Counseling, & the Negation of Life and

In 1920, Binding wrote a treatise in which he began to propose the concept of Life as a commodity, which should be seen as either having intrinsic value to the State or society, or having none at all. The article was entitled "The Authorization to end Life without Life Value". In it, Binding and others posited that there were some lives, that had no value, no 'instrinsic' value as life had always been seen, because the lives in question did not merit a useful place in society. Binding further argued that these dissensioned persons did not even experience life and thought as 'normals', and were therefore expendable. Binding and later authors began to argue from a Racial Science/Darwinian Science point of view of natural selection in which certain individuals were a detriment to the 'group' and to group society, and brought into question whether those with severe (and sometimes moderate) handicaps were even capable of 'real' human life, and posited that the ending of those 'marginal' lives would be more merciful than letting them live. By 1933, Germany had instituted "The Sterilization" law which allowed the sterilization of retarded persons kept in institutions, and in 1933 also, the act was furthered to include many more in the 1933, November 26th: Law regarding "Social Ostracism", which added to the fray 'social misfits', including epileptics, some deaf, the 'incorrigible' criminal, alcoholics, and even the chronically unemployed.

These persons who became the victims of involuntary sterilization programs, were deemed to be a burden on society, a waste of taxpayer's money, and were deemed "Useless Feeders, meaning, that they took up tax reichmarks to support, but their lives never yielded any income to the state of Germany. Advertisements were promoted regarding how much retarded adults cost the State, and why they were best 'culled' in defense of a pure Aryan bloodline, though initially, the argument was economic. (It should be noted that the United States had a similar program, in which it is estimated just as many institutionalized persons were sterilized involuntary.)

Useless Feeders

With the aid of racial scientists and theorists, and a new day for Darwin, the concept of 'culling' the race of 'useless feeders' became not to some as a merciless horror, but a pragmatic effort at creating a 'New Germany' to replace the nation beaten down from the loss of and debt from WWI. Those in comas, elderly who were not consumers, and those already mentioned were deemed as 'not really life': the term which came to play was Lebensunwertes leben: Life Unworthy of Life, and articles, speeches, and communique argued statistics: how much does it cost to fill a hospital bed?, How much a day does a retarded child or adult cost the German taxpayer? What could be done with the money? and lastly, what if we cleared those hospital beds for the use of soldiers?, as talk of war drew near.

Quite early in the process, there was talk of far more than sterilization, but also what was cautiously referred to as 'Euthanasia', from the Greek meaning 'good death'. In the classic "Doctors of Death", an example of one of the first encounters with parents of an institutionalized child is given, in which the reasoning involves the good of Germany, the patriotic duty to put the State first, and the insufficiency of life which would never amount to anything. Weeping parents were held to their duty as German citizens to allow the death of their institutionalized child. Parents were often required then to pay for the procedure and burial costs of the child that had died. The methods used included lethal injection and the withdrawal of food and water, a lengthy and painful death. Before the war had even begun, most of the killings had occurred in Germany, some 65,000, including experiments with streamlined killing methods, and in the process of the killings, the coordination of efforts was developed under the rubric of the T4 Euthanasia Program, after the address in Berlin at which it was located. Most of the members of the T4 Program who designed the 'efficient' killings went on to take leadership roles in Aktion Reinhard, the operation to totally eradicate the Jews of Europe in mass killings and a 'final solution' to the 'Jewish Question'.

Lebensunwerte Leben & The Obama Healthcare Plan

Now to such fine liberal minds as Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, this may all seem like some conspiratorial conservative diatribe about how Obama is a Nazi, so I beat them to it, but beg a rational hearing with explanation. "Nazi Germany" was not 'Nazi Germany' back then: it was a twentieth century Western Hemisphere civilized society, which was reknown for giving us Opera, the Arts, Fine Music and the University. It gave birth to the Social Sciences as well. When talk about 'useless feeders' came up, it was first put in political parlance, and in the discussions about German health care options, tax 'dollars', and effective recovery for Germany.

Because we have 'demonized' (as if they needed help) Germany under the Nazis, we tend to forget that save for the 65 years which have passed, they were on par with the United States in worldview and politics, sharing many of the same peoples, so much so that we did not decide till late in the war which side to enter in on. So with apologies to Rachel and Keith who have demonized those who know a little about how great societies begin to decay and fall apart, as 'birthers' and 'guys with swastikas at health care town meetings', there really is more to the radical proposed changes in Health Care than meets the eye---it is not just revolutionizing high cost competitive Medical care into Socialist Medical systems available to all, but it carries with it, particularly this bill, a revolutionizing of what life, is worthy of life, and that, dear friends, is an old and deadly argument.
Valuing Life

If we were really to thoroughly examine how the worldview of the Reich came about, it would require far more than this blog and would start some centuries before, for no ideology occurs in a vacuum. The real 'fraying' of the cloth though, began when traditional German values and institutions changed form or began to disintegrate, and the most essential issue, alongside emerging racial philosophies, was that of the valuation of Life. Hitler and other top Nazis, decried abortion from their sinister pulpits, but they opened up access to abortion. In the ghettos, some Judenrats were required to execute orders for forced abortions on Jewish women waiting deportation (e.g. Belarus area). While clamoring for moral German families and the propagation of the race, nevertheless immorality was rampant, and and practice, law and speech did not always correlate well. Abortion was frowned upon, while ease of access was accelerated.

Likewise, the division between racial/religious lines was made: those akin to 'root races' inferior to Aryans in their thinking, were 'unworthy of life' even if they contributed to and helped build the society. Those with infirmities were now targets also not just of sterilization programs but of 'euthanasia' programs, graduating again from the mentally retarded to the mentally ill, to epileptics, deaf, blind, and eventually even social 'ills' such as mentioned before. As more and more killings in the prewar period occurred, persons became desensitized to 'Life for life's sake', or life with intrinsic value, and counted Life according to utilitarian purposes, especially to the State. This was a critical step for the Nazis towards an 'effective' genocide in which most Germans would turn their heads the other way. Even so, a great outcry from the churches occurred, so great, and so supported by the world outside of Germany, that Hitler had to end the T4 program. There was not nearly such an outcry in defense of the Jews, who remained 'Lebensunwertes Leben'.

How then does this discourse on Nazi Germany relate to the 2009 Obama Health Care Program and why many are so upset about it? There really is a viable comparison, which begins at the foundation: the valuation of Life, and the bringing into view the crossroads for the US as to whether we are a nation that values and holds to "Life for Life's Sake", or "Life for the State's sake", for it means far more than how we handle health care, but what kind of nation we leave to the next generation. We are at that pivot now, and the Health Care bill does indeed have serious issues regarding government funding of abortion, and what is being termed 'end of life counseling ' or planning, and what the bottom dollar is compared to quality and length of life.

Life Worth Living, Life 'Worthy' A short passage out of the bill reads as follows:
___________

....One of the most outrageous mandates in the Democratic health care bill is found on page 416. [Mod note: try pp 425-426] On this page, you will see mandatory “end of life care...[Free Republic"
‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items— ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems; ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting; ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and (iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’.

The Obama health care legislation challenges the concept of Life in the US on several points:
1. It challenges free enterprise in the Medical Community to make medical decisions without government intervention
2. It challenges individual choice in Medical care
3. It relegates 'end of life' decisions to at this point, governmental observation, although the bill currently allows for the recording of individual preferences
4. It leaves open to serious question any role of the government in deciding what is 'quality life' and what is not.

Further more, regarding end of life issues, it includes as possible withdrawals for cost-effectiveness and no other reason:
1. Medical intervention in apnea, cardiac or pulmonary problems
2. the use of antibiotics and
3. the withdrawal of food and water, to hasten death


Several problems arise with the reasoning: first, apnea, cardiac and pulmonary problems are often correctable, and their is an age-based bias in assuming that another year of an 80 year old's life is less valuable than that of a 25 year old. That seems to me to be a Civil Rights issue, for I am quite sure that 'slow codes' will be used frequently for the aging, but not for the young. Secondly, there are no definitions but I am sure there will be of what constitutes a severe apneic state, or cardiac or pulmonary problems by the government not individual physicians and caretakers. Are we going to make decisions based on whether the dying person is a Kurt Vonnegut or Pete Seeger? or a criminal? Human nature will, whether we argue the point or not.

Thirdly, antibiotics are almost always a quality of life issue not just a length of life issue. Are we going to deny antibiotics to dying AIDS patients? or the elderly with pneumonia? How much will be saved? Do we just stand beside them, coughing and choking and explain what the government is saving with the removal of treatment? Are we going to give them a table with triplex movie screen with pictures of the 'old earth' and sell what's left as soylent green? When the argument becomes one of cost-effectiveness and economics, people and life become commodities, and it is no longer a land of the free, but only a home of the brave.

Yet lastly, there is a far greater fear that I believe I share with many: when did we become so merciless to think that we can include the word 'euthanasia' in withdrawal of food and water from a dying person to hasten death? Please understand that is not a painless death , far from it. It is a merciless horrible death. There are three physical things which break most people under strained circumstances, even the young and healthy:

1. Gasping for air where there is none
2. Starving to death
3. Dying of thirst

When did we make these things 'medical care'? When I started this column in 2005, Terri Schiavo was being starved and 'thirsted' to death while the whole world watched. Police guarded the ones doing that to her, though thousands stood outside protesting. That week, shark swarms surrounded Florida, and I couldn't help but be overwhelmed by the irony. Today in 2009, we are proposing this as a standard measure for 'end of life' consideration. I am against all forms of hastening death, but I have seen prolonged suffering of the first order, and do not make judgments at least in some cases, but I am 100% opposed always at all times to removing food and water, the necessities of life from any human being, and I think it is brutal, cruel and toxic to the human heart, soul and condition to do so. Why not just be honest? Why not lethal injection? I don't agree with that at all, but why not? You would rather watch them starve and thirst to death while their kidneys shut down and they go into convulsions? While fevers rage and the body and mind break? That's a tenet of a government sponsored bill? That's supposed to be a reason to support Obama?

Changing the Social Order

The bottom line is this: we, the people of the United States, regardless of our differences have always held LIFE as the pre-eminent value, and it has made us great among nations. We have led the world in Civil Rights enactments, guarded life, fed life, protected life, promoted life, until recently, and the effects on our society have left us knee deep in blood. 40 million abortions, most without good cause, about 100,000 dead in the last few wars of young men, daily gang and violent deaths, negligent deaths, highway deaths, child deaths because we won't curtail the porn industry, deaths, deaths , deaths and we want to add more.

Obama's plan will not just lead to unthinkable frontiers of healthcare, but will radically change both the Social Order and the way we consider life. When our view of Life changes, the quality of life changes. The Medical industry doesn't want less freedom, consumers do not want less freedom, none of us want less freedom or poorer quality of healthcare which goes always with Socialized medicine.

As a society we are moronically polarizing into shouters with agendas, instead of careful thinkers on complex problems. Liberals run to government funding as a solution to problems such as health care, but it has not solved problems in education at all. That is because the problem, after a certain level of sufficient funding, is not monetary but philosophical and methodological. Many conservatives believe the solution is to wantonly disregard government funding, and leave Medical care to 'Laissez Faire'. Most do not address that even though we all want health care for all, it is not a guarantee of the Constitution or federal government, so to some degree we have long ago entered into socialist thinking already.

Could there be other solutions? How about streamlined government 'rewarded' programs such as
1. Truly affordable private HMOs. This would retain choice to some degree, but HMOs and Catastrophic health insurance that costs around 200.00 a month is out of reach to most lower income persons.
2. Most hospitals already have funding to cover uninsured low income families. Most though run out of funds before the fiscal year is up. Why are these programs not 'upped' before social medicine? Or at least 'whatever can be paid options', for however long?
3. How about the government establishing rewards, benefits and provision of used equipment for church and agency sponsored health care family/walkin centers in every community? With education loan forgiveness for medical students and new doctors willing to volunteer? Churches can ease the burden by providing limited services to their own members, where even nursing assistants and physician's assistants can handle most common complaints. The idea of local centers is certainly not new, but the government could 'reward' churches by for example allowing them tax exempt status in exchange for running the centers.
4. Why should the government be involved at all in 'end of life' decision making? This is the realm of family and physician to some degree. Decisions to refuse treatment should be left with the patient in all cases possible and next of kin when not. All that is set in place already without government entering again where they do not belong.

The more we keep government out of decision-making regarding our own lives, the better we are as a people protecting basic first ammendment rights. This is not an argument for abortion choice, for that involves two lives, and life, always life for life's sake needs to be upheld. It keeps us human. It keeps us from destroying ourselves and others.

The problem is not liberal nor conservative: the problem is human. Both liberals and conservatives, most, want a solution to people suffering without healthcare. Liberals feel government should step in and fill the gap, conservatives do not believe in people dying wantonly in the streets, they want quality healthcare without government intervention in life decisions and determination, but they want private solutions. This issue needs to be fought on human ground not in the caustic ring of political expediency and namecalling.

Holocaust, or Shoah Studies: A Proposed Graduate School Curriculum-and it's inherent problems

If there is one fault to Holocaust Education in its various forms, it is a lack of consistency. We say 'holocaust education' generically and think we know whereof we speak, but while the field and topics have burgeoned over the past 60 years growing into an almost unified field of study, the field is still diverse and lacking standards for training. Most of the efforts at Shoah Education have been in the K12 sector or to the general public. Fortunately, over the past 25 years, interest in the topic soared, so much so that even Hollywood produced one major successful feature film after another including Schindler's List, Jakob the Liar, Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Defiance, The Pianist, and a host of others, and the broad list is accompanied by documentaries too numerous to mention. History Channel and occasionally the Military channel and Discovery channel include Holocaust documentaries as a part of regular programming. Musicians and Artists have taken the topic to forefront expressing an international conscience, books have been authored and almost every form of education imaginable has touched on the Shoah.

Classroom education has also greatly increased with the advent of many fine programs such as the Paperclip project, Wiesenthal's MOTLC, USHMM's varied approaches, Tennessee Holocaust Commission's 'hands-on' trunk of empathy-oriented materials, and other programs across the country but still, there is little consistency. A good deal of the problem comes from minimal training of efficient teachers, who at best either hold a private interest or have attended a workshop or two, and who are alloted anywhere from an hour a year, or a 'program', to a continuing 'course'. This inconsistency has fostered some problems which occasionally hit the newspapers, when well intentioned teachers fail to think carelessly designed programs completely through. An example from just a year or two ago was the case in Florida when children were assigned either to a group that was persecuted like the Jews, or to another group. The persecuted group had to be last in line, last to the water fountain and lunch, etc, and while it sounds like a good idea, parents became enraged and children upset, since they were not mature enough to transfer the concept to shoah education, and instead did not understand why they were being treated so unjustly. K12 Shoah education though is for another discussion, though it is by far the main goal of much of Holocaust education.

The Web also has become a formidable resource of holocaust education and yet is sorely neglected save for a few outposts of stalwart efforts such as USHMM and Wiesenthal Center's MOTLC, VHF (Spielberg-Berenbaum) Jewish Virtual Library, FCIT, Spartanburg, Miami-Dade, and last but certainly not least, Shoah Education Project Web, although the last is directed toward the Church and General public, though still used in reference form by the K12 crowd. Even on the web though, while they may bear a resemblance to one another, the sites range from 'encyclopedic' type sites of detailed information (while not collated useably yet, Wikipedia has among the best individual topic approach available than all of us), to empathic sites on 'feelings' about the Shoah, to real training modules. Most of the eminent sites on the net are authored by people with some degree of training and a few even by scholars, which is a very good thing, since so much public information today comes from the labile net.

Training though, to teach Holocaust Studies or Education, is beset by problems, and starts at the level of K12 Teacher training, Church Education training, and the training of Interdisciplinary scholars at the college level. The first two groups in need of training though, are dependent upon the third: while there are some very fine Interdisciplinary Holocaust Studies Programs, efforts therein are also inconsistent across institutions, and many Universities have either no Holocaust Studies program as part of the curriculum (some have special extra-curricula programs or event-series), or at best have one elective course undergraduate, or a few core courses in graduate school that allows a specialization.

There are though some stellar programs and developing programs that are very promising including U Minnesota's Center for Genocide and Holocaust Studies, or USHMM related programs, and numerous other programs including e.g. U Vermont, University of Nevada-Reno, Calvin College, Vanderbilt, and many Jewish and Catholic Universities.
Many holocaust studies programs are umbrella'ed under History Departments or Jewish Studies departments and others are merely a few courses within disciplines.

Holocaust Studies are Interdisciplinary

Holocaust Studies though are by nature Interdisciplinary: one cannot teach a viable program without leaning on several fields. I was not formally trained in Holocaust Studies, because 28 years ago when I received my doctorate there were very few programs. Many who are called holocaust scholars hold doctorates instead in German History, Jewish History or Studies, Religion, Theology and other disciplines. My background and that of at least a few others who continued in research, was in Psychology, with an orientation towards research in Thanatology. For many of us though, (I consider myself more of a holocaust educator than scholar) our backgrounds both greatly contributed to our understanding of the field, and the lack of cohesion at the time hindered what we might have been able to do.

I have considered for some years what the ideal graduate program would have been, if I had the opportunity to retrain, or even take a post-doc for a specialization. While my early career and studies lent to Grief, Mourning and Bereavement issues, even then, many of the courses I took, while never defined as Holocaust education or studies, contributed greatly to the foundation of later research and understanding. Among the coursework which helped lay a foundation were courses in Human Conflict and Accord, Theology since the 1940s, Contemporary Systems, Philosophy of Science, History of Psych and Individual Differences. Since I was trained in 'humanistic' psychology, a great deal of our readings were influenced by or directed to holocaust topics since many founding fathers of modern Psychology were German or Jewish or both. That coupled with years of reading in the field (it takes about 10 years to become realistically conversant), I propose what I believe would have streamlined that process and given form to it.

1. Holocaust Studies if independent, should as most Graduate programs do, include a series of Overview Courses in basic segments of the field. In Psychology, we were required to take a 'Reading' or Literature course in the areas of Developmental, Personality, Cognition and Perception, EAB, etc before even beginning in our specialization. These were intensive overviews of each area taught by a professor with research in the area. Holocaust studies has the problem of 'not having its canon completed' so to speak: the basic areas are known but not delineated. Literature courses should include:

A. Overview & History of WWII and the Shoah (with the distinction)

B. The Church and the Shoah

C. The History of Israel in the 19th to 20th Century

D. Art (art, music,theater, literature) & Artists in the Shoah

E. Women & Children in the Shoah

F. The Killing and Atrocity Centers, and Work camps

G. Information systems (propaganda) and Gleichschaltung

H. The Aetiology of Mass Killings: T4; Einsatzgruppen, Aktions &Endlosung

I. The Conferences & Documents of the Shoah

J. Kulturkampf , Lebensraum, Blut und Boden, The Volk, and Nazi Beliefs

K. Experience of the Shoah: Eyewitness Accounts

L. Revisionism, Pro-Palestianism and Denial

M. The Jews

N. Eugenics and Racial Science

2.Other Central Courses could include:

A. Civil Liberties, Law and the Shoah
B. Theology , Doctrine, The Bible, The Torah and the Shoah

C. Timelines and Research Methods

D. Justice and the Shoah

E. The United States and the Shoah

F. A New European Order: The Cartesian Enlightenment to the Maastricht Treaty

G. A Question of the Shoah: The Most Common Questions About the Shoah w/answers

H. Genocide and the Shoah

I. Since the Shoah

J. The University and the Shoah

K. The Family in the Shoah

L. Education in the Shoah

M. The Person in the Shoah: Degenerative vs Regenerative Processes

N. Resistance and Rescuers

O. Doctrinal Anti-Semitism

3. Courses Helpful in Understanding the Shoah

A. German History

B. Jewish History

C. German (language) I & II (at least)

D. Polish & Yiddish

E. Italian I & II

F. Modern German Opera since late 1800s

G. The Sociology of Groups

H. Human Conflict and Accord, or Aggression

I. Nietzsche, Voltaire, Gobineau & Precipitating Philosophers

J. Statistics

K. The Resurgence of a 'German Renaissance'

L. Propaganda Techniques

M. Aesthetics

N. Anti-Semitism Through the ages

O. History of the Church

The above is not a comprehensive list, but would equip even a doctoral level candidate with a broad based overview of the field to either remain a generalist or specialize in an area.

Problems Facing Holocaust Studies

Since the problems facing shoah education in general are fairly well known, the concern here is for the problems facing graduate study in Holocaust Studies.

1. There are many more interested candidates than there are positions.

2. The degrees are adaptable, but less adaptable than for example psychology or physics.

3. True Holocaust Studies, runs the danger of melding into generic Genocide Studies. Nothing in some ways is more important in this century than understanding Genocide and its dynamics, yet by the same token, one will never understand Genocide without comprehending the Holocaust and its peculiarly Jewish focus. However, the farther we get from the Shoah, the less call there will be I am fearful for graduate trained scholars in Holocaust Studies. We are 65 years from the last days of the Shoah, but we still have interest and eyewitnesses left. By 100 years, or 150 years, it is difficult to determine what will become of such specialties. Will it turn all to genocide studies, or 'tolerance' education? Will revisionist influence hamper the focus and demeanor of the studies, changing it from a Human Issues field to military history? It is difficult to tell, yet unless it is carefully founded and made consistent, it could be a tragic but short-lived discipline.

Many Universities as mentioned already have fine programs, but few have detailed and exact training. Training of this nature involves money and politics and an academic milieu which is quixotic at best. The need though cries out, for consistently trained scholars, who may then train lay people, teachers and others, who instill in the heart the oft-cry of 'Never Again'.

ekbest09

The Dangerous Believers: Christians & Jews

I had to phone in a police report the other day, because for the umpteenth time in the past few years, materials related to my holocaust education and ministry websites had mysteriously disappeared, along with a manuscript accompanying some other computer related offenses. When the officer came to take the report, on a Sunday afternoon, he stood in my kitchen and as I fumbled with some diskettes and verifying information, out of the blue he said, "I'll just stand in between you and the knife." [There was a kitchen knife on the table].

Now, while I write a lot on the net, and am even occasionally controversial, nonetheless, I am an almost 55 year old Christian, who takes twenty minutes to get out of bed in the morning, what with encroaching age and all, writes Bible Studies like mad, and continues a fervent effort at Holocaust Education for the Church. I do get overly verbal sometimes at home, alone, but by the end of my tirade I am either preaching the Gospel, or teaching Shoah Education, to whoever may hear, but, even at my age, I am aware of it, and it is best relegated to the realm of 'eccentricity' instead of outright insanity. So when the young officer stood in between me and the kitchen knife I had used to make lunch, (I think I cut yams with it), fearing my potential violence, I replied, "Well you don't have to worry about me, I'm a 54 year old ex-college professor who writes Bible Studies".

He responded that he didn't know that and that I might be violent. I replied, "Not on Sunday". "On Sunday, its only verbal".

I'm not sure he appreciated my sense of humor--- I haven't noticed that the Manitowoc Police have a sense of humor--- but his fear seemed to carry into the next room, where I had, in my potential arsenal, a small steak knife which was right next to the duct tape I was using to seal boxes of files. He stood in between me and the utensil again, I guess fearing I might leap over the boxes defying arthritis, grab the knife and duct tape, disarm the poor fellow and, I don't know, hold him hostage for his walkie-talkie.

Now before one thinks that I am just naive, I do understand clearly that it is a very dangerous age for Police officers, and while Civil libertarians including myself take issue with a lot of police brutality, few defend the police against drug abusers gone berserk, or drug dealers with real arsenals, or any of the many dangerous people who beset officers on a daily basis---including sometimes people one would never expect like little old ladies (there are a few in this area).
It was the third time in my life, though, when encountering a police officer, when I was just not encountered in a normal or constrained way, and I began to wonder, why that would possibly be, given that among most, I am a usually even tempered and quiet bookish-type person.

But then I wonder also why a lawyer in China named GAO who did nothing but defend Christians on human rights was tortured beyond belief by Red Chinese Police, or why a 5 year old Muslim girl was beaten for a petty theft, or why an old lady was dragged out of her car and tasered, why a handicapped man was thrown out of his wheelchair at a Tampa Police department, or why a student at UF asking about the Oil industry was wrestled to the ground by a multitude of Campus police and buzzed, or why street preachers are these days regularly arrested for preaching the gospel on street corners. Or why there was ever a Final Solution to exterminate a people who had been on earth since the beginning, because they believed differently and were exiled from their homeland.

Not all of those examples are pertinent to my point, but it does show, that for some reason there seems to be a growing misdirected apprehension of the weak, elderly, and BELIEVING portion of society, particularly, towards believing Christians and Jews. I believe it is very possibly a 'sublimation' or 'displacement' of fear and anger on the part of law officers who are feeling increasingly powerless against the monstrous violent forces at work in society, some just breaking down and taking it out on people over whom they are more powerful. They know they can control those folks, who will not retaliate or fight back, save perhaps for litigation.

Dangerous Believers
More to the point though, it has been forgotten by the modern mind, that throughout human history, two groups have always been considered more dangerous to society than armies, brutes, and monsters: the true believing Christians and the true believing Jews. While I suppose some may desire an 'operational definition' for 'true believing', still one has no trouble identifying many who are. There's just something, 'a little different' about them, that threatens status quo.

They Who Turn the World Upside Down
There is a scripture in the New Testament which is spoken of the Disciples of Jesus as they went to Thessalonika, preaching, which sums it up:

Act 17:6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

How did they turn the world upside down? They paid their taxes, worked quietly with their own hands, started no riots, and obeyed the law, but riots started around them, including whole cities chasing them out, stoning them, killing some, fearful as could be. They did the same with the Children of Israel marching through the desert towards Canaan. They did the same to all the prophets and they did the same to Jesus himself, trying to push him over a cliff, calling him glutton, drunkard, wayward and insane. They healed, comforted, edified, and built the house of God. Yet even on the Gabbatha, when Yshua stood on trial, the crowd chose a thief and a murderer, an 'insurrectionist' instead of the divine Rabbi, who healed the sick, gave sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, and even raised the dead. They chased him out of town once when they saw demons cast out of a man into a herd of swine, demanding he leave immediately.

Why do true believers encounter such hatred and violence in almost 180 degree reversal of logic? Fear. Essentially, Fear.

People know the 'natural' world. Albert Camus, when speaking of suicide, once said that People learn how to live before they consider dying, which is why even many who wish to die, do not put their hand to it. The same principle works here: people learn to live in a natural world before they ever consider God, and what is beyond death, and when the real power of God is shown, through healings, miracles, prophetic utterance, prayer, or through the power of the Word of God, many people would rather stay in ignorance and the world as they have always known it, than make a leap of faith that might change both their lives and the world around them. Even if its true.

I have considered whether this will ever change at all, and I think as I grow older and have seen a great deal more of the world than I wish had, that, no, it will never change at all. In youth, I believed that all injustices could be righted, or at least fought, and even in age, I believed that when people learned the truth about a person or situation, they would deal justice, but often just the opposite is true. So the task for 'true believers' while it is never wrong to stand for the truth and justice, is to comprehend that we live in a world which is hostile to belief, and which exerts brute force, the only thing they understand, against people of conscience and belief, and that the battle is a divine and sovereign one which has occurred across centuries.

With regard to true believing Christians and Jews, though, there are several distinguishing characteristics which lead to the belief that they are dangerous, when they are in fact quite the opposite, often being the stability of society, and peacemakers. Among those characteristics are the following:

1. They both believe in One God, and One Way to God. While Jews and Christians do not see eye to eye on that issue, they still understand that there is a God above all, singularly (issues of the Trinity another time), and Orthodox Jews and Christians [Orthodox meaning 'straight thinking'], believe that one path leads to God. That is the fundamental teaching of both, whether individuals adhere to it or not. The belief in One God, One Way, creates havoc some fear for they automatically assess that those believers if in power will want everyone to believe the same way, and they fear the loss of liberty. This fear has led to terrible and horrifying results, as many governments see the rapid growth, e.g. of the Christian faith to be a threat to even governments.

2. True Belief as a threat to Nations

True belief, in Judaic and Christian belief carries with it power and the Glory of God. It does not matter if one believes this or not. The Jews lasting centuries without an army or homeland, far beyond any other people subject to the same, invoke fear in governments. They have since desert wanderings. Christians, and often Jews, have been furthermore behind every healthy and good social and political change in most centuries: Walesa's Solidarity movement which brought down despotism started in prayer in the churches. The fall of the Iron curtain did likewise. Christians and Jews were the foundation of the Civil Rights movement in the United States, it has been a point of health and liberty to the US. Who were the real fighters for Jewish freedom and the freedom of the weak, elderly, poor, retarded, the non-Jewish victims of the Shoah? Jews and true believing Christians. [not nominal ones.] Who has been behind world wide efforts for freedom of speech and religion? True believing Christians and Jews. The peace movements of the world: well, not all, but eminently, Christians and Jews. They are the biggest givers to the impoverished, they build freshwater wells in disenfranchised nations, they feed the hungry, etc, yet their fervent belief makes them to many nations a pestilence instead of a blessing, though they are significantly the latter.

3. Purity Issues.
The world in many ways has grown so puerile and grotesque, that to even talk of 'purity' or leading pure and chaste lives, is met with raucous laughter. True believers of these faiths though lead pure and morally clean lives. While many parade under the name Christian or Jew, and live anything but righteous lives, true believers do, and it poses an inherent threat to those who do not, even when nothing is ever said.

I keep a posting regarding persons who have been persecuted or martyred in some way for their faith in front of me. One is of a young woman named Abuk Ajing who when 14, for refusing to convert to Islam, was beaten and her chest mutilated with a knife. She held to her faith, and represents the thousands of young women who because of their faith and pure lifestyles, each year are raped, beaten, tortured or even killed, sometimes for the great crime of refusing to have relations with lewd persons or give up their faith. When the Einsatzgrüppen marched into the Ukraine, young teens were raped and beaten even in front of their parents-much of that history is politely swept under the table, but needs to be made known: it is the nature of the beast. People kill and beat young women (and young men these days) for refusing to let go of chaste lifestyles because their lifestyle is a reminder to those wallowing in the world that they are not pure people. They mock, humiliate, taunt and pressure young people especially to leave the walk to the point it is a wonder any stand anymore.

4. Christians and Jews are willing to stand against Status Quo. While one cannot peg a whole race or nation with one characteristic, still, Jews are among the most likely to ask 'Why Not?' when queried 'Why'. And Christians, finding strength in Christ, comprehend better than most, the difference between our conversations being in Heaven vs on earth, and will challenge convention more than most. Of the 2.5 million homeschooling families (growing in 30 years to almost 0 to that) most are Christians. And they are producing creative thinkers and moral youngsters. I noted one Orthodox or Conservative Jewish couple who delivered Christmas presents for Salvation Army: they in no way compromised their beliefs, but shook status quo, and decided to show real tolerance. Jews and Christians are often the peacemakers, but are met constantly with war.

5. Christians and Jews are more likely to offer their lives for their faith. There are some Islamics who will also. With a peaceful army of people willing to lay down their lives to effect change, whole nations and even the world can change. Ask Ghandi, who learned his peaceful non-resistance from the Sermon on the Mount. Ask Dr. Martin Luther King who learned his from the Sermon on the mount and Ghandi. Ask Jesus,who learned and embodied the Torah.

6. Jews and Christians are more likely than most to be Slandered. Throughout history, Jews were accused of 'blood libel' in which rumors took hold every time a child disappeared that the Jews killed the child like a lamb for slaughter and took the blood of Christian children and baked it into Matzoh. A horrible thought, but a constantly spread rumor which kept the gentile community afraid of and in abhorrence of the Jews. It was to the benefit of institutional churches who did not wish a return to Jewish forms of belief. Christians likewise find these days in the US as a group that they are characterized as bible thumping idiots who force their beliefs down other people's throats and who are bigoted know-it-alls. Individually, a Christian standing for their faith, may encounter every slander held against Jesus and the disciples, often in direct proportion to their witness: a pure person is accused of adultery, prostitution, or lewd conduct, an honest person is accused of theft or fraud, a teetotaler is accused of drunkenness or drug use, and the list goes on. These railing accusations are a way of dis-empowering the effect of belief. People who degrade and deride others nonstop for faith, are trying to get rid of both their own attraction to it, terrified of change, or to feel superior, which they do not. A great rash of this went through the Christian church some years ago as a false practice of 'false or induced memory' was instituted in what was called Christian Psychology [there is no such thing], and many were literally hypnotized into falsely accusing pastors and family members usually of incest and sexual abuse. When the young people usually the victims got away from the 'counselors' of that ilk, most later recanted, but not before many broken lives. Slander and libel are used to dis-empower belief.

7. True Believers are Often charged with insanity.

Stress is not insanity. In fact, Insanity is a legal term, not a psychological one. Psychologists are trained to move people away [they posit] from false beliefs and interactions, and most practicing non-Christian psychologists, see a fervent belief in God, in Jesus, as a mental illness, or at best as a 'coping mechanism' which many share. This makes psychological assessment grossly unjust in many cases to the practice of faith. Faith is the 'substance of things not seen' and psychology does not want anyone to believe in what they cannot see. I wrote a column once with a subheading which said it all: "Don't Tell a Psychologist that Jesus is Coming Back Soon." The Rapture is a commonly held doctrine among millions of believers. Millions. Worldwide. Over centuries. Why does Psychology think it can override that? Is it not merely imposing the secular perspective of psychology onto Christian or Jewish faith? Would a psychologist comprehend Kabbala, or Hasidic dance and worship? When people are assessed for mental problems they are assessed individually and not in groups: one is asked,

"So, you believe that God will return in a cloud on Mt. Olivet? Isn't that what you said?" The respondent replies, "yes..but..." and the Psychologist asks, "Do you hear voices?" The client responds, "Well if you mean the still small voice..." and the psychologist replies "How long have you heard these 'still small voices...'. "Well, there's only one still small voice, like with the Prophet Elijah." "Do you think you are a prophet?" "Well, no, but the point was..." "Oh, I'm sorry our time is through".

The tag of 'mental problems' or 'mental illness' works wondrously to disempower or overthrow a person, because even the most honest person, from that point out is haloed with the effect of not detecting reality. It is becoming more and more a political tool in this country to silence dissidents who shake the status quo.

Dangerous People
True belief is becoming a crime in the United States. The FBI profiles true believers in very uncomfortable language. The death of Vicki Weaver is an indication of dangerous profiling. Was she outspoken? yes. Was she bigoted. Yes. Was she violent? No. Not compared by far to most white supremacists, and she was a mother with a young baby. She was made out to be a nightmare from hell, a mesmerizing matriarch who might start a movement, because of someone's perspective. While I do not have knowledge of it, I assume the 'Unabomber' was not a Christian or Jew, but he was someone of ardent extreme belief, and if he was the real bomber, he was dangerous, but the psychologist who assessed him at the time could not discern between radical belief [even dangerous radical belief] and paranoid schizophrenia. Paranoid Schizophrenics rarely plan out intense actions because they can't. They are reactionary. Back to the issue though of Jewish or Christian belief, the term 'schizoid' 'schizo-affective' and 'schizophrenia' are being used way too often towards people of faith, by psychologists with no faith, and hence no knowledge of as William James noted 'the variety of religious experience'. These terms are a sinister form of enforced incarceration and silencing political foes or those perceived as societal foes wishing to change the given order. Recently though there is a more dangerous trend: persons seen as dangerous because they wish to UPHOLD TRADITIONAL VALUES, MORES, and life. I have personally been accused of attempting to 'go back to the way things used to be' which translates to honest interactions and fair weights, so to speak. I find myself more and more staring blankly at the wondrous logic of people who think we shouldn't go back to the Bible in Christianity, because so many people don't. Majority rule has outweighed law and logic. We are seeing appointments of incompetent people who will obey authority above all else, despite the law. If one in the workplace says, "I can't do that" referring to setting someone else up, they will very likely lose their job. The thing has turned upside down and it is dangerous for believers.

The United States, President Obama noted in a Speech gleefully, is no longer a Christian nation. He also just about sent children services after Father Abraham and Isaac. He has a Secular-Socialist point of view, without even questioning the foundation of those beliefs, and real faith, in his brave new world, real free speech, and real worship threaten the new order he would like to see. It is not Christians, Mr. Obama, or true believers of righteous faith who are dangerous. We are not terrorists. We do not yield guns or swords, and bottom line Christianity could care less about obtaining the Kingdoms of this world which are passing away. What we are concerned with is people being made whole, and a world that stays as peaceful and healthy as possible until the end. We are not 'dangerous believers': we seek the overthrow only of what keeps people in bondage. If the Lord God once and awhile uses us as a little marble rolling under the feet of some despotic nightmare, well so be it. Perhaps we may proudly say, soon that we have 'lost our marbles.'

ekbest

Apostle Paul's Remains Found Right Before Tourist Season

I love the Apostle Paul. He started churches, but other people took over, he loved the Lord Yshua and could not forebear telling people about Him, so much that he was constantly beat up, imprisoned, stoned, rioted against, shipwrecked, bitten by vipers, and run out of town. Over and over. He never could hold a position in the pulpit for very long. One longstanding 'joke' letter in Christian circles is a letter from Paul applying for a job with the following credentials:

"Gentlemen:

Understanding that you need a preacher, I would like to apply for the position. I have many qualifications that I think you would appreciate. I have been blessed to preach with power and have some success as a writer. Some say that I am a good organizer. I have been a leader in most places I have gone.

Some folks, however, have some things against me. I am over fifty years of age. I have never preached in one place for more than three years at a time. In some places I have left town after my work caused riots and disturbances. I have to admit that I have been in jail three or four times, but not because of any wrong-doing. My health is not too good, though I still get a good deal done. I have had to work at my trade to help pay my way.

The churches I have preached in have been small, though located in several large cities. I have not gotten along too well with the religious leaders in different towns where I have preached, and I am sure that they will not recommend me. In fact, some of them have threatened me, taken me to court, and even attacked me physically. I am not too good at keeping records. I have been known even to forget whom I have baptized. However, if you can use me, I shall do my best for you, even if I have to work to help with my support."
The Apostle Paul

HE kept on preaching though. Unlike preachers today, he had seen the Lord up close and personal and he was anything but the kind of man who went for any sort of fanaticism. Trained at the feet of Gamaliel, (Acts 22:3), he was in his own words, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews",

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

He was a man among men. So zealous of the faith of his fathers, that when the new sect of 'little christs' came about he got a legal order to persecute and arrest all those radicals who refused to go along with the status quo, you know, the big money ministries that were ruining Israel and giving Judaism a bad name. They saw the little band of believers (then) as dangerous, nutzy , hellenized, and threatening Israel, possibly bringing trouble with Rome like their leader Jesus, Yshua, that rebel slave from Galilee. Zealous Saul Paulus of Tarsus got his order, mounted his horse and took off with a band to do some real damage, that Scholar of Israel, zealous for perfect Judaism. He wasn't opposed to a stoning or two, maybe even a roundabout here and there, if these rabblerousers were put in prison and their light put out. On the road to Damascus though, something so drastic happened, that it turned that Israeli Sanhedrin-bound scholar, into a shivering child, asking Yshua, "Lord, what would you have me to do?". The rest is History.

The Bones in the Tomb of Paul

While legend surrounds the Apostle Paul and other disciples, regarding where he died and how, it is known that his last letters were written from Rome, although some argue he travelled in between to Spain and Portugal, and then back to Rome where he was either burned, beheaded, or otherwise killed. One legend has it that Nero, setting Rome on fire attempted to blame Paul and the Christians for it, a great tradition of world leaders even in this day and hour. They all fiddle around with the truth.

However he died, though, this scholar of the Law turned itinerate preacher in love with the Messiah of Israel and filled with the Holy Spirit of God, however he died, Rome is now claiming that the bones in the tomb of St. Paul outside the Wall, are really Paul's, just in time for tourist season.

To begin with, it is a non-issue: whether they are or not, proves nothing and adds nothing to faith: we all have bones, all have a few left or at least ashes years after our death, and though today we can do DNA traces, then we could not. However, I had to wonder and even marvel at the constant lack of logic that comes up lately at the new hobby of finding Jesus and his apostles' bones, and how odd a hobby that has come to be.

First of all, buried in St. Paul's tomb, by the Roman Catholic Church automatically means that there is at least a 5% chance it might be Paul. The RCC wasn't around back then to collect bones or build tombs. Perhaps there was a note in his pocket that said, "Not John Mark, anybody but John Mark"---addressed to Barnabas. Maybe there were viper bite marks. Just a little first century humor here folks. Maybe it had enclosed a bookbag full of scrolls. Who knows? The article though said one thing, that makes me doubt completely that it was ever Paul's remains: it had a gold brocade wrap of some sort, and all of Paul's teaching is to the contrary.

Paul admonished women not to wear broided hair, and bangles, but to be adorned in the inner spirit.

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

and his constant theme was humility and surrender, dying to self. He himself surrendered the fine things of this life for the finer things of the next. Gold brocade wasn't on the list.

What are they going to do? Get DNA samples? Even if they could, the most they could tell is that the bones were possibly Jewish and male. How many Pauls were there in Tarsus? Or Rome? Thousands. The Vatican loves its icons and tombs, but most are idolatry, and our faith does not need to rest on the 'seen' but on the 'unseen', that being the substance of faith. Two thousand year old bones don't often tell very much when there are only fragments. Scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists and Bible scholars of the Curia may be brought in, but for all their observations and tests, they will be guessing, theorizing, and still will not be able to prove whether or not the bones really belonged to the Apostle Paul, who does not need them anymore, save for perhaps one day in the near future when God will decide which bones belong to whom, and what to do with them.

Some think that finding St. Paul's remains will 'prove' the Gospel, but belief in God and His Messiah is an issue of faith for Jews and Christians: all the authenticated bones in the world will neither cause faith nor destroy it. The Shroud of Turin, if anything, has been 'unauthenticated' but it does not prove Jesus and His Resurrection was not real, only that someone produced by whatever method, an icon to entice faith not in Jesus but in the Catholic Church. The recent controversy over someone thinking they had found Jesus' bones, rested solely on the name Joshua (yshua) scratched on the side of a stone ossuary, in a time when the name was very common and He is reported no where to have left bones.

Large religious organizations often feel the need to manufacture faith, objects, icons, statues, etc to entice or confirm belief. The ones that do it, feel they have real proof, and atheists argue that those inauthentic objects make faith inauthentic but neither is correct. Our faith does not hinge on objects or even on historical or anthropological 'proof'. We teach constantly that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence and nobody doubts it, and we have his signature, but we were not there. Our belief that it is his signature rests on our FAITH, the belief in the unseen, that there was a John Hancock, and that the signature was his. Why then, do we think we apply a different set of rules to faith in Yshua, or Jesus, or God in General?

Chariots drowning in Reeds

A few years back, theologians, who may be known by skeptism more than wisdom, argued widely that when Moses crossed the Red Sea and the Waves allowed God's children to go through, that they were actually referring to the "Reed Sea" a shallow swamp, assuming that they , the million or so sloshed through mud and yuck to get to Canaan, and then the mighty Egyptian army, the greatest army of the day, experience in all forms of warfare and mad as heck, got to the 'Reed' sea, and what, got stuck in the mud? What a God.

A story was told of a little boy returning from Sunday School who was asked by his grandfather what he learned. He replied, Well we learned there was this general named Moses, and he was being chased by an army, so he got helicopters and hand grenades and bombs, and threw them in the water and it blasted the waves apart so all the people could go through and be safe'. His grandfather said, now is that really what they taught you? The little boy replied, Well, no, but if you heard it they way they taught it you would never believe it.

That's what our theologians are like. They can't believe the God who created the waves could roll them back for the purpose of the Salvation of the Jews, the Messiah and mankind. They have however been stuck in the mud before, so they use a whole different location than the one mentioned because they HAVE NO FAITH. Only the paltry thing called human reason---NOT DIVINE REASON. They argue that Mary, the virgin of Galilee could not have borne the Messiah of Israel in a virgin birth, because they cannot conceive (ahem) of it, so they say that a Roman soldier probably raped her, not knowing that this particular slander came from a Nazi theologian arguing for an Aryan Christ. They argue that the Word of God cannot possibly have been preserved over the years, but they have no problem with the writings of Josephus, or anyway lesser problems. They see miracles and they make archetypes. They want dead things for proof like bones, tombs, ruins, and artifacts, but when they find them, they still do not believe. Imagine their surprise at the finding of chariot wheels embedded in the sand under the RED Sea, or the body of Pharaoh, at least one of them! That is because faith has a different economy, comprehension and conversation than human reason and logic which fails us often, and especially about every 5 to 10 years.

The Catholic Church did not rest on the shoulders of Peter, the man with the keys to the Kingdom, nor Paul, the servant of God who gave up all for the high calling of Yshua HaMeschiach, Jesus Christ. It had its underpinnings in Paganism, including the worship of Ashtoreth, and Diana, and it was no surprise that Paul's preaching caused such a stir among the Diana worshipers who made their living off the sales of statues and idols. The solidifying of the emulation came in 313 a.d. not in a steady succession of Popes, but in a steady succession of Emperors from Rome who persecuted Christians, but because of the nagging of his mother, Constantine gave clemency to Christian worshipers ending severe persecution, but doing it even worse damage by making it a State religion and integrating pagan practices such as the worship of the sun god in what would become not the breaking of bread Messiah commanded, but the Eucharist and perpetual altar, instead of the one and for always sacrificial atonement. The nature of the beast was a "Holy Roman Empire" partly political, partly religious, ruled by the same persons, which has contrary to popular opinion never really died, but waxed and waned through the centuries. The Roman Church is the only religious body with declared and recognized ambassadors, the Apostolic Delegates and Pro Nuncios, which regularly influence world politics and defend the interests of the Catholic Church with embassy status. The Holy See and Vatican City is a Nation-State, though undeclared as a nation among nations, and has fought Israel at every turn for their right to Statehood. It is far more political than religious and has always been.

So the bones of poor Apostle Paul are no doubt not resting easy, as it is probably for political purposes that they rise up this one last time to speak to the Goyim.
Perhaps they are not his real bones, but the bones of some poor priest who decided to really preach the Gospel and got shown the Apostle Paul up close, say in the 15th century. How about enough of trying to find forged Copies of the New Testament at Mt. Athos like the Sinaiticus, or the bones of Jesus (since not one of his bones were broken, that would be hard) or the bones of Paul, or the miraculous radiated impression of Christ's face on a napkin which couldn't have been either since it was rolled up separately in the tomb, or Jesus' image on toast, or buildings, or in the photo on eBay, or the weeping Mary who only weeps blood when a little woman puts red dye in the faucet around Easter, etc, etc, etc, etc. Give it a royal rest.

Paul is probably not the body in the tomb of St. Paul. No one is going to be able to absolutely tell, in any event. Old and New Testament are strong in their admonitions against idolatry. And Paul will live on, through all of us who love him for his great work in the Gospel every time the Word is preached in love and rightly spoken, but his remains can be nothing more than one more political ploy or religious fascination, assaulting real faith. The truth is, neither the Catholic Church nor most of Protestantism or even Evangelicalism would have wanted Paul in their presence for very long: he was a little touchy about doctrine.


This blog may also be found at judahsglory.blogspot.com

Keeping the Baby, Throwing Out the Bathwater: A Lost Lesson

One disturbing trend would be an understatement when referring to the United States these days. Yet if there is 'one disturbing trend' that I have noticed, it is the inability of the general citizenry to think clearly, to discern, to reason, to order ,order, and systematize and to compare and contrast in planning, decision-making and other acts of reason. The etiology of the problem, in my opinion, lies partly with the changes in Education, ('holistic' education has not helped); partly with changes in family structure and roles, and partly with the media, and the constant grab for non-stop entertainment as opposed to other pursuits.

A perfect example of the problem, albeit a minor one arose in a story on a local news channel not too long ago. A demolition company had just demolished the wrong house, and the owner, an aging man came to check on his childhood home, where he still kept his mother's china cabinet and other memorabilia, to find it in rubble. In tears he called the demolition company, and asked why in the world they had razed his house to the ground. They said, 'Well, we had the address'. He replied, 'it was the wrong address'. They stressed, that their fault was minor because 'they had the address'.

That little vignette is a perfect example of the logical retardation that seems to have beset the country over the past several years. The idea of doing wrong, of causing suffering, of having to pay damages, was of lesser concern than whether something can be 'said' to make the errors all go away. More and more I hear that type of reasoning. Once a number of years ago, I sat on an ethics committee for a Children's Hospital research review. Whenever someone wanted to do research in the hospital, they came before the committee, presented the study, the risks, the safeguards, the consent process and so on to the multi-discipline group. Once a fellow described a study regarding treatment of children with Cystic Fibrosis, and one possible side effect of a treatment was that it could get worse. This concerned me (then a College Professor at a Medical School), and a Rabbi who also sat on the board, although it seemed to bother no one else. At least I thought, they would offer treatment, if the new procedure did not work, but that was not the case. After some debate about the ethics of the study, the head of the committee turned to speak with the hospital attorney, asking , 'Will we get in any trouble for this?' The bottom line was not whether it was ethical or not, but what it would cost the hospital monetarily if something went wrong. Again, no 'rights and wrongs', no concern for other people, only the bottom dollar and not getting in trouble.
We're all fine with that kind of reasoning as long as it is not our child when the treatment goes wrong, or the wrong house gets demolished.

The problem though extends further than that: it extends to Congress, the national debt and mortgage crisis, to issues regarding Church and State, to Medicare, to Wall Street, to Psychology, Law, and Medicine and just about every other area in life which requires in-depth thinking. 'Pork barrel' spending in Congress isn't just a result of special interests, it is a result of failure to reason down the line: and so is the mortgage crisis , social security crisis, health crisis and national debt. There is a new non-chalance regarding actions at the highest level of the land: e.g. giving the Queen of England an I-pod for a gift, or giving a Russian dignitary, a prank gift with a misspelling. People at the highest level of decision making, are thinking in the moment, for the moment and carnally, contrary to higher level discernment of times past.

The Vatican, no matter which side of it one stands on, has a telling saying:

"We think in centuries here."

They certainly do, as do any millennia-old institutions or groups: they consider every major decision for its wisdom, short-term consequences and long term consequences, and whether there are safeguards against failure, and how the decision and its possible outcome will impact not just the current situation but the next generation, and the generations to follow. They also learn from past mistakes, noting what works and what does not, and detailing at the highest levels of the world a better descriptive psychology than anyone teaches in a classroom. Monarchies which have survived centuries and great families have learned a few lessons: never to turn in on themselves, never in in bitter quarrels to make the negative known, and how to deal with every situation. Further, they teach it to their children and grandchildren, who will someday follow suit. In America, we just don't do that much anymore: we give a little advice here and there, make sure kids are clothed and off to school and count on them to impart reasoning, thinking, and problem solving skills, but almost all our education today at home and in school is focused on 'in-the-moment' gratification with the highest ideal being some myth of 'self-esteem'. Wisdom and reasoning, ordered thinking and thinking in systems is disappearing from the American way of life. Families and institutions who grow great and survive, continue in seeing themselves as whole and vital units, and pass not just knowledge, but acumen onto their sons and daughters.

Getting to the point
Now, after that diatribe, one probably thinks that this blog is about better education and the training of thinking and reasoning (which there should be, but that is for another time); but the issue at hand particularly is the need in our society to not 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' and stop repeating tried and true phrases and axioms, stop following 'handbooks' of correct behavior, and stop refusing to consider some ideas when they are related to other distasteful ideas, and /or distasteful people.

Liberal and Conservative Handbooks
One of the first issues that needs to be dismissed is the following of hardcore rules for how liberals vs conservatives 'have' to think. The news channels are down the line on one side or another save for a few that most consider 'boring' but carefully weigh the facts. BBC and the PBS news programs are examples of the latter. Does anyone doubt though, on a nightly basis on TV which side of an issue Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow will end up on? Or Pat Buchanan, O'Reilly, or some others? This is no smear of those folks: they are all very bright and capable, clear-spoken, and can be really compassionate about other people even though they are on opposite continents of thought. Yet that is how we divide issues and reasoning and why we never move ahead. Liberals would have to hide in a closet if they opposed Proposition 8, or abortion. And a Conservative who opposed military spending, or some other hot conservative issue, would have to do likewise. The world and nation have become so complex, beset by so many threats and for the first time since the Civil war, even the possibility of overthrow, that polarized thinking and carnal reasoning will only contribute to the fracturing.

Mixed Issues

An example of a mixed issue that polarizes people, without clear thought, is the separation of Church and State. We hear about the Deutsche Christen, the nazified Church in the Shoah which changed doctrine, practice, training , theology and liturgy to satisfy the Nazis, and we cry 'how could they: why would anyone do that" and we use it as an ensign of danger and revulsion. We fill out 5013c organization forms though, for non-profit status of Churches so that we can give tax deductions for contributions, and do not realize at all that it is the same issue: the registration of churches with the State, so that the state has the 'last word'. That is headship of the State. That is what Bonhoeffer, Niemoller, and Barth fought against. We proclaim Bonhoeffer as a hero of the war for taking down the Nazi flag from the altar, but we consider it a nutcase thing to do here.

One of the reasons for our unwillingness some will argue is that the US is not a despotic and deadly place to live, but we are certainly there or headed there. Secondly, we equate such beliefs with White Aryanism, the 'Ruby Ridge' crowd, or the 'wackos from Waco', and we surely do not want to be one of those. We are afraid to stand up for what we know is right, e.g. the 'headship of Christ' vs. the headship of the state, the very center of the Barmen Declaration which even 'High' and liberal churches hold dear, and yet we give the Federal Government the right to oversee our membership lists, finances, pulpit speech, etc, even to the point of disbanding a church which will not comply. We are afraid of being typecast as a nutcase, reactionary or a bigot or 'nazi', although the Nazis would have been very happy with our 5013c laws, because it would have given them the direct 'in' to state control of the Churches. So do faith based initiatives. Back to the issue of clear and in depth reasoning, the issues need to be separated from those who commonly hold them. I believe the 5013c is contrary to the Constitution, but I am not an Anti-Semite: indeed, I believe the Synagogue should be free of the requirement as well. The Federal government was never meant to have control of the House of God.

Davy Crockett (yes, really) most do not know was a Senator, and very well thought of because of his clear thinking and reasoning. A fine Christian man, devoted to the Lord, and compassionate beyond measure, he opposed government spending on welfare issues. He did not lack concern for the poor, ill and disenfranchised, quite the contrary, he was more concerned than most, he just believed it should be families and the Church who cared for them, not the Federal Government. We stay where we are growing deeper and deeper in debt because many Senators and Representatives feel that to oppose social programs will bring them bad press and fewer votes. The difficulty though, is that no one want to think outside of the box for real and long term solutions. Our lack of concern for thinking about tomorrow is leaving us very possibly , very soon with a bankrupt social security system.

We do the same for 'Homeland Security' and 'Patriot Act' issues. We remove boundaries of Civil Liberties, all glad that terrorists can be caught but we sacrifice freedom and may if not careful substitute a free society for one as oppressive as the one terrorists would bring in. Hurricane Katrina had evacuation routes well established but no way to care for tens of thousands of homeless persons long term. The scrambling for solutions was done at the end. The FBI profiling of Vicki Weaver led to two innocent deaths, because the Feds did not understand the admixture of fundamental faith, with the incursion of hate doctrines. Think tanks are often sophisticated opinion tanks but not solution 'tanks'. Repetitive sayings have over-ridden reasoning and the truth.

I have encountered this kind of reasoning lately in my own work. I put over 20,000 hours of work into one of my main websites over 12 years, and now that it is nearing completion, there are these moronic folk who think they can override copyright law, web law, registrations and so on and 'represent' the work for me, without my permission. They think because they have a better weight, age, appearance, dress style, etc that they can replace an author. And though that sounds so moronic that no one would take it seriously: it is a line of thinking that is becoming rampant in business and academics, and now in ministry related work. Segments of society think they can bluff anything. Question them about right and wrong and they will repeat phrases: 'Well I am sure, kind sir we can address that issue when we come to it." "Well, so and so may be the author, but I will represent the work, quite adequately". It's a stunning defense: pretty people will replace Shakespeare, Cyrano De Bergerac, and modern authors who look, I don't know, look just kind of....". Others have tried to put their children who were 0 to 5 when my work started as an issue of humiliation and degradation like the men and women who look at a painting by Pollock or Picasso and say, "O my kid could have done that". The ability to reason and think systematically is gone, in favor of repetitive encantations, and outright violence and bullying.

The Recent Shooting at USHMM

It was the recent shooting at USHMM which started my thinking down this line. The man was at least from appearances, a raw, straight out fascist bigot. There is no reasoning to shooting the security guard, but none of us really know what happened or what the interchange was. We race for the easiest scenario, bad guy, good guy, bad guy kills good guy. We stamp it a hate crime, before hearing any facts. It probably was, but we ASSUME without facts. A fellow at a church we once attended spread a rumor he had heard about us all over town. We thought it was too ridiculous to be true and no one would even remotely believe it, so we laughed. Twelve years later, it is no laughing matter, because it profoundly went from one ministry to another causing devastating ruin. No one even bothered to confront or reason through the rumor.

The fellow, von Brunn who shot at USHMM, though, did understand amidst his vile hatred and prejudice, other aspects of society which are serious and need attention. He tried to citizen-arrest members of the Federal Reserve years ago, and landed in jail. That was not wise, however symbolic. But it does not mean that others of us cannot consider what he thought was wrong with the Federal Reserve, and quite technically, they were doing some very suspect things. If one brings it up publicly are they a 'von Brunn lookalike'? We need to slow down and stop repeating our unquestioned positions. Iran currently has two factions fighting over a fair(?) election: one faction wants an oppressive Islamic fundamental worldview, but their view is a society with little crime which is safe and comfortable for them. The other faction wants a liberal contemporary, progressive leader (that would be a moderate there), with Western openness, to live freely. Both have plusses and minuses. We don't want to live in a fundamental Islamic regime, but we all want safe streets, peace and law and order. We want to be free, and forward thinking but we do not want drugs, violence, etc. So what shall it be? A society where women can be killed in honor killings, but there is no adultery, or a society which is liberal but incites violence on every street corner. Reason says 'neither: there has to be another solution"---and then seeks to find it.

Unless this society starts in all levels of government and the Church to think carefully and with complexity about issues confronting us, and returns to standard boundaries of right and wrong, whatever one's politics, we are gone in a couple of generations. Systematic reasoning can be taught. Tolerance does not begin with telling zealous Anti-Semites that 'all races are equal': they will laugh. It begins with extracting and even exhuming the vestiges of the reasoning process and ordered thinking in all of us, when confronting even hate crimes. We need to keep the baby, and not throw it out with the bathwater, because the two were in such close contact. As simplistic as this sounds, educating ordered thinking and reasoning, and using it in everything from neighborhood spats to Congressional hearings, may mean the difference between a nation surviving or being overthrown.

USHMM as a National Ebenezer: Understanding Why Violence Chooses Unique Targets

Jos 4:21-2 And he spake unto the children of Israel, saying, When your children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What [mean] these stones?
Then ye shall let your children know, saying, Israel came over this Jordan on dry land.

By now all are aware of the events of June at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in which James von Brunn, an elderly Holocaust denier and well known anti-Semite, shot Stephen Tyrone Johns, on a busy visitor day at the Memorial Museum.
The security officer died, and von Brunn remained in serious condition following the exchange. Needless to say no one expected the violent interchange, on a quiet summer morning when thousands of tourists flock the streets of the Capitol to see the sites, and the great portion of honor goes to the other security guards and police officers who responded with immediacy and dignity to avoid a much more tragic scenario, though the incident is hardly unremarkable.

To some extent, although few will breathe it out loud, it is far more surprising that many more such incidents have not already occurred. USHMM, partially federally funded, partly privately funded more than any other nationally visible symbol, or 'Ebenezer' speaks of the Shoah and the Jews more than any other ensign, (more even than the Wiesenthal Center) just by being there, by being in existence. Terrorists like to target symbols, and those involved in 'hate industries' are no exception. James von Brunn had been known to make symbolic gestures before, serving time for the attempted 'citizen's arrest' of members of the Federal Reserve some years back. (Not that a lot of us might not want that honor one day, from all backgrounds-pardon the black humor.)

James von Brunn is a little 'showier' than many anti-Semites and holocaust deniers, but his rhetoric on the net is vile and open : racial epithets fly on his 'holywesternempire.com' site, decrying world Jewry, denouncing Obama for being controlled by his 'Jew' bosses, etc. (I wish Obama would listen to those folks a little more, maybe the world would run more smoothly. ahem.) One cannot though underestimate the sentiments and beliefs of many of the 'true believers' of Anti-Semitism, and dismissing them as crazy, or imbecilic will not work. For all the time spent in teaching tolerance, these folks are often not listened to nor understood, and that just fuels the fire for future tragic incidents, targeting 'representative' organizations.

Vicious Anti-Semites

I must begin by saying that it should be self-evident that I am not condoning any act of hate, certainly not the senseless shooting death of the USHMM guard. Yet in our swift efforts to condemn the action, we need to understand how we polarize people into corners leaving them no release for even expressing their views which may very well lead later to hate crimes. The anatomy of a hate crime usually has a lengthy process: there are first years and years of inculcating the hate, through family members, schools, unfortunate incidents, and later literature , groups, and 'admission' to 'secret knowledge', often a temptation to pride in which those of a certain lodge, society or other group knows something the rest of the world does not. Reinforced by many others of similar beliefs, hatred and bigotry to racial or creed groups grows, but as long as the society is generally stable and comfortable, confrontations stay mainly verbal.

Later in the process though, events may reinforce and enhance hatred: run-ins with the objects of hate, e.g. young Jewish students who yell back, or an Afro-American who they perceive cheats them in a business deal, fuel the fire and become self-fulfilling prophecies, of 'see, I told you 'they' were like that'. Tolerance organizations more often polarize anti-Semites instead of seek dialogue. I have been around both kinds of people a great deal in the past, and I have heard the expression 'vicious anti-Semite' as often as I have heard 'nigger' or 'kike' from the other side. Liberal persons characterize these men and women as stupid, ignorant, uneducated, backwoods, paranoid, and even insane. That is also untrue: education level runs the gamut across Anti-Semitic, and so does background these days, in colors from University-Based pro-Palestinian all the way to White Aryan groups and politicized churches. The hatred though, is very real, and foments over time, and while deniers and others seldom seek out or wish interaction or dialogue with those they consider controlled by Jewish interests, tolerance folks also very rarely venture out to initiate real discussion instead of argumentative and incendiary debates.

There is no naivete here: it is highly unlikely that dialogue will change the minds of these folks, anymore than tolerance people would change to the opposite point of view. What might be changed though is an education on both sides as to the human status of both sides. One cannot underestimate the danger involved in practiced and organized hatred, but it almost always comes from a failure to identify the humanness of the person hated.

Beliefs of Anti-Semites

There are dozens of varieties of Anti-Semitic belief. Some are anti-Semitic out of a lack of education or exposure to Jewish people: they speak awkwardly and even repeat epithets and myths they have heard, because they do not know any differently. In one Sunday school many years ago, I gave a copy of a coloring book out called "Jesus was Jewish" that taught the very young very simply about what it meant to be Jewish. One parent expressed surprise that her little girl did not even know what a Jew was. It was an opportunity for learning. In churches I have confronted 'ignorant anti-Semitic' in doctrine, truisms, beliefs or adages, not from people who hate the Jews, but from those who see only differences. This first realm of Anti-Semitic is the most educable. When people who have ideas which are wrong but who do not hate received information which corrects those beliefs, they grow and many problems are averted.

Portals Into Hate

There is a more difficult level though, and the group is growing, of persons who did not start out Anti-Semitic, or hateful, but fall into the snares of very real organized propaganda. In the early 1990s, I attended a small Baptist Church in the Midwest, which looked for all the world like most others. They had a bus ministry for kids, potluck suppers, preaching etc, and while the preacher was from a country background, he appeared a pleasant and polite man. One Sunday though, quite by surprise he began to preach about the Jews being the most wicked people in the world. Later we discovered many anti-Semitic pamphlets and literature on the tables in the Church foyer. After a few months we were invited to a large church meeting in Indianapolis, in the days following the Ruby Ridge incident, and not knowing who we were dealing with, discovered about 500-1000 pastors, families and other worshipers dealing not with the Gospel but with politics, world Jewry, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and one of the main speakers was Bo Gritz, who had just been at Ruby Ridge negotiating the end of the crisis. We had been led to believe that the meeting was mostly about Homeschooling and church-state issues, church and school registry etc, but we were baptized into a whole different culture than I had seen up close: the group was not just Baptists, but a diverse group including even some Mormons and an orthodox Episcopal priest. They really were very circumspect and suspicious, but with some reason: many had been investigated by agencies such as ATF, the FBI, and the IRS, and a few jailed. A short time later the Church where the meeting was held was closed down for tax evasion. The literature out on the tables in the lobby and the persons hosting tables were an array of real hardcore anti-Semitism and racial hatred: exaggerated drawings, leaflets inciting the overthrow of the Jews, the government and so on, mixed with information on survivalist issues, and the featured speaker, Gritz, had come with videotapes from the foot of the mountain the Weavers were on.

One may think that given those beliefs that the group was a hardcore unkind bunch of haters, but that is really not the case. Am I trying to say that these anti-Semites were really very lovely people? No: I have spent years and years trying to get the church to understand a right and loving perspective towards Israel and the Jews, but to really understand and confront the problem, we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There really were very lovely people there: not unlike others I had gone to church with elsewhere. A number like us, were 'unregistered' homeschoolers, a legal status, but there to get information on legal defenses. Many were not even anti-Semitic but believed as we do that the Church should be separate from the State, and were keeping up on issues and legal concerns. Many more though could not separate the issues, and they indeed were hateful and saw the Jews as responsible for all problems in the world: all: money problems, political problems, religious problems and even their own life problems. They believe that if the Jews were gone, their lives and the world would be better. They espoused doctrine I know now had its genesis in the DC, the Reich Church, although most would be hard pressed to know its origin. Some really were dangerous and advocated militant overthrow of the government and the Jews, which they did not differentiate. And the Federal Reserve, an arm of what they saw as World Jewry because of the Jewish names of many of the bankers.

While we left the little church in our home city when we got home, flabbergasted at what the whole thing had been about, the point is not that I was ignorant and had fallen into an unsuspected situation, but that even with my background, education, and at that time in 1992 8 years in bible study, I did not detect the whole 'process' for a few months. There is a subtle and growing indoctrination process, not of a lot of little old nazified men ranting and raving many picture, but of kind and nice church people, inviting people from the periphery of issues which many people share even in holocaust studies such as Church and Synagogue independence, tax-free status for churches, or non-state affiliated religious schools, to the more virulent and offensive issues including anti-Semitic stance and doctrines, often not promoted or addressed until a person is well into very tight-knit groups. By the time they are in 'inner circles' of these folks, hatred begets hatred, and it is even plausible that persons with no ill feelings towards other racial groups can be groomed and trained into it.

The Spotlight

More to the point: Anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitic groups are growing significantly with more and more mainstream conservative people joining at the periphery and being led into the center of prejudice. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, one of the main publications of the Patriot movement and similar movements was a paper called "The Spotlight". The first time I saw it I was appalled: it carried stories of 'heroes' handing out the protocols of the Elders of Zion (from the Nazi era) in German airports and getting arrested, ads for buying and selling gold, rants against the secret council of Jews that ran the world, etc, in short it was an identifiable fringe newspaper of the White Aryan variety. A few years later, in Illinois, I found it in a middle class public library, and it had changed its timbre and look: it carried conservative columnists and issues, articles on homeschooling, back to nature issues, church state controversies, mixed in with the former junk. It also had greatly, even geometrically increased readership. One could tell that they were 'boiling the frog', or warming up converts. By the year 2001, there was some sort of controversy which had shut down "The Spotlight". However, one must understand keenly that within 10 years, they had gone, with their related groups, from being a fringe rag, echoing the Volkische Beobachter, to a 'Conservative Christian Newspaper' with some fringe issues, without changing hands greatly. The reason many Christians were deceived, and also courted, was because of the twisting of scripture and doctrine, accompanied by the comfort of companions, clean living, church activities, and comradery mixed with a fervent 'true belief'.

Numbers and Hate

ADL has published numbers which I have quoted before in SeditionAct regarding the number of members in the Militia organizations, but their numbers are underestimates. One cannot get at the real numbers because many will not even keep membership lists and if they do, they are 'high security'. They know there are Feds in their midst, and they do get paranoid, although some with good reason, such as a couple some years back whom we met after they were investigated by the IRS. They had their credit card records checked, their family and friends called, and any number of uncomfortable occurrences. The constant fear also drives people further into those kinds of beliefs. The man who walked into USHMM and fired his gun, had been for years involved in that kind of life, including imprisonment for the Federal Reserve incident. While the Gospel teaches "Perfect Love casteth out Fear", the converse is true also: Perfect Fear casteth out Love. Love and Tolerance become for these folks seen as 'soft', namby-pamby' ideas meant to weaken an individual, or even as 'plots' to overthrow the conservative stable 'American' way of life. The subtle indoctrinations, coupled with Church proselytizing, coupled with overlapping issues such as ecclesiastical-state issues, coupled with a trained us-them mentality, painted with fearfulness, portrays a scenario in which many hate crimes will occur in the future under the guise of protecting a way of life.
If the number of persons actively involved were really tallied combined with those who will look the other way, it would be frightening. The SA in Germany by 1933 contained 2.5 million para-military members, about 3.8% of the population then. We have close to 70 million who claim to be conservative Christians, who will certainly not all even be tempted to the agenda, but provide a fertile ground for the propaganda. The Militia may number close to a million, the Patriot movement more. White Aryan nation groups or 'Identity' groups number in the hundreds of thousands or more. The influx of persons from the Southern border is bringing many persons with prejudice and religious-anti-Semitism, and that is not to mention the overflowing move on college campuses toward Pro-Palestinianism and even acts of violence, or other groups such as some brands of Islam which espouse and use the same hate literature and propagandizing as the other groups.

The USHMM as an Ebenezer Target
When in the Book of Samuel, the men of Israel fight the Philistines, and win, Samuel the prophet places a stone called 'Ebenezer' between Mizpeh and Shen to denote the Lord's help in battle. Ebenezer means 'stone of help', and marked a victory and a remembrance of what the Lord had done. Now, the USHMM is partly federal so I cannot perfectly equate the two, but the Museum was a great victory when it was proposed in 1980 and dedicated in 1993, as a 'stone of remembrance' and victory. While most rejoice at the Museum which has mostly sensitively and tenderly carried out its mission, and provided the strong leadership and cohesion the Holocaust Studies and Education field needed (as well as resources, scholarships, education, archives etc), not everyone in this country is happy with the institution. Some want it changed into an 'all people-all genocides' organization which while a worthy cause, betrays the reason for it. Others want it to be more Federally controlled, which cannot be done and retain its purpose, character, or demeanor, and which I believe would lead to its use as a propaganda tool to ameliorate the US role in the Shoah. There was a small inkling of that flavor recently when representatives from the Military marched into the President's speech. Far too many though, do not want it there at all: the massive support and number of visitors gives a pollyana-ish hope that there will be no problems, but we can see why there can be and has been.

USHMM is a symbol, a stone of remembrance. For most of us, that is a good and even great thing. To those who are fearful, it is seen as a banner of those they hate. Most anti-Semites will not go so far as to commit hate crimes beyond rhetoric, but harassment, confusion, and even overthrow are not beyond possibility. There is either some form of understanding and dialogue, or massive education campaign within and by the church and conservative groups, or the tragic shooting of this past week will be only a portal.

CyberCzars, CyberRasputins, and Cyber Anastasias

For the past six days or so I have been reading about the pending appointment by Obama of a forthcoming "CyberCzar". Supposedly, in this one individual, will be an embodiment of some ethereal 'internet security policy', which keeps getting encumbered by, how shall we say, 'a lot of big words' but never ends up in any where near a useable or pragmatic way to even begin to keep the Internet safe for government, business, or private citizens.

The new 'Czar' will hopefully, they think have a role on the National Security Council, to do something which has been carefully reviewed with suggestions in a 60 page review by Melissa Hathaway. Others note that the favored candidate will be the darling of the Recording Industry, ahem, who fears the download on Bearshare of such all time money makers as 'The Great Speckled Bird" or "Cowboy Pride".

Obama entered office and began appointing any number of Czars. He tried to appoint Czars in places where no Czars have ever been allowed to date though there have been many 'secret' Czars and self-appointed Czars. He appointed a whole committee of Faith and Benevolence Czars, Church, Mosque and Synagogue Czars, and all the Czars answered to the Czar Czar...I think that's Rahm. Obama and Rahm are both from Chicago , the city of Czars.

The appointment of an Internet Security 'Cyber Czar' though, is unique for a few very terrible reasons: one is, the Internet is already full of CyberCzars, each fighting for the right to control the Internet and none of whom are really sure who is or should be in charge. I have recently confronted in my own work how confusing authority can be on the net when little Czars, Rasputins and Anastasias begin to control what you can say, do or own on the net. The problem with Internet security, whether it is for the Government or individuals is that it is still undefined and unsolved. Government is worried about intrusions and hacking and modification/information collecting by foreign governments and special interests. We are far beyond the days when Wozniak and Jobs and Gates tried to find security holes in NASA or the FBI (whoever tried that first), and then helped the agencies solve the problem. We are now in an age of technology and expertise which includes such insurmountable problems as the one mentioned recently in a Senate hearing regarding whether foreign manufactured routers could include unknown and virtually undetectable data collectors which could return info to governments such as the Red Chinese.

How Bad Security has gotten and Can Get
When alot of people think of security on the net, they think of 'wurms' and viruses.That same Senate hearing included intense discussion of the recent 'conficker' worm that created havoc , well sort of on the internet and which should have included midday cyber sirens and red alert buttons, but which could be removed by almost any spyware or malware cleaner. The first thing to recognize then is what is really a threat to security and what is merely a pest. First and foremost, education makes a difference and there is no consistent central source of education for basic security training for all. We all learned about adaware, spysweeper, spybot etc on our own, out in the street, and then learned what were real virus protection programs and what were scams. While this is a first line of basic defense, it is hardly the massive security issue that bears a half hour discussion before Congress.

A much greater threat to us all, is strategy and esoteric knowledge. Who knows the Internet rules the World. Overstatement? Not even a little. I met a young fellow a few years back in Reno Nevada, who had savvy and knowledge on the net beyond most I have ever met, in his early 20s. He had studied and 'figured out' Google robot technology, and could SEO almost any site to the top of its class. While there are thousands of folks in Search Engine Optimization who can greatly improve a site's chance, this one fellow, a real Cyber Rasputin, could catapult a site to # 1 fairly consistently. Knowledge. On the net it is a golden grail. It means that what we see in a search, and thereby what influences our research, writing and BELIEFS is now heavily influenced by what appears high in search rankings.

Take a simple example. Let's say a child is looking up the word 'holocaust'. Out of 25,500,000 listings, he or she will probably look no further than 2 or 3 pages, or around 50 to 60 listings out of the 25.5 million. That's .0000002 (rounded) of what is out there, influencing that child's perspective on the shoah. Not much to worry about with Wikipedia and Ushmm figuring prominently, or about.com or History1900s, but what if stormfront.org, or radioIslam.com press in with the best to run their ideologies to the top? Or what if a darkhorse Congressional candidate or presidential candidate, rather than using wisdom and positions, merely hired the best IT guy, and ran a propaganda campaign with a 'cyber edge'?

Coupled with an emerging technology to control information (see Bayesian Networks), the education, beliefs and reasoning of an entire forthcoming generation will cease to be in the hands of traditional 'estates' of the nation but will instead rest in the hands of an oligarchy of savvy tech wizards. While they are benevolent and tolerant, few will care, but when that goes, its anyone's guess.

Another Security Issue though, premiere in this decision which has been addressed before in this column, is the idea of what happens when the Government begins to take control of first Security concerns on the net, and then other issues. The government of nations has already had some hand in Internet control: Red China and North Korea tightly control amount of time on the net, registry of users, allowable content, and commerce, and recently Iran has jumped on board, momentarily losing its mind to sequester the use of Facebook. No more easter eggs for Mahmoud. Google, the still growing Monolith that it is has succumbed for business purposes to their whims, and so has Yahoo! including the turning over of registry information on blogs which contributed to one blogger to be beaten to death. The 'free speech' arena is drying up for us recalcitrant bloggers, us 'cyber Anastasias'-nobody knows who we are, we thought, though they somehow noted our royal stature.

The US is no exception, and while the nations rage, the government entity of ICANN governs the right usage and registration of Domain names, the last vestige of hope for authors and web designers to own their own material on the web. The World though does not want a US entity solely to govern such matters, and really, apart from our glut of pride and 'ethnocentrism' we really do not have a right to control the total governance of DNS usage. What if a dissident falls out of favor with the US government? It's happening now. Even suggesting the above means undue monitoring. If ICANN, even though they are usually very fair and moderate falls under the pressure of a despotic executive branch, what decision will they make towards an individual out of favor and with little power? Design something fascinating on the net today, with high numbers, and it becomes a free-for-all threatening the loss of copyrights, revenue, reputation, and results potentially in even career and life ruin while merchandisers and 'cowboys' attempt to get something for nothing, except for the fact that that 'something' may involve a decade of hard work. People are becoming reluctant to put too much quality material on the net at a time, and I know of at least three formidable sites which were taken over by far less competent people than the owners and authors by the snakiest methods on earth.
Hosting companies may contrary to the law move and hide IPs and switch servers at the last minute and after years, in one fell swoop can make it look like your extensive site was really on another IP and everyone ends up in court. Mirror tricks, that result in deadly consequences. Who do you appeal to? Courts, law enforcement and attorneys often are not nearly sharp enough on IT issues to really argue points of law: I have found in my own work they often do not even know the law in their states.

Also, some hosting companies are disappearing with thier clients' work, and reselling or marketing it in a way the client can do little about: the stats and specs they need for court are in the hands of the ones they are suing, if they can find them. These are all individual site owner security issues, not national issues, seemingly, although they join the ranks of stolen bank accounts, rerouted mortgages, and ID fraud: so easy on the internet. Is the Recording Industry angry about lost revenue from downloads? I am worried about the massive misuse of the net and chat rooms to seduce children or even young adults across state lines by the most sinister of folks, with the problem growing so great, that law enforcement cannot deal with it. How will a cyberCzar address any of those very real Security issues.

Can a CyberCzar stop 'cyber-bullying' which is driving some children to suicide? Will they even look into it? Can they stop corporate takeovers by sinister interests of even large businesses and organizations using the net? How easy is it to overthrow a corporation? Fairly easy, with enough people with know-how. They can switch browsers, steal motherboards, fake and redirect registrations, waylay shopping carts and checkouts, and conduct massive credit card fraud, stealing millions of dollars of merchandise, leaving the seller holding the bag with no recourse. They can commit insurance fraud, waylay income tax returns, and worst of all, looming dark and threatening on the horizon, they are bartering IDs: careful use of the Internet can garner whole fraudulent identities to falsely gain benefits, jobs, housing, and all the other baubbles thieves go after.

In short, despite CyberCzars, Rasputins (some real wizards out there) and the mundane but outspoken, wistless , winsome Anastasias such as myself, the solution to Internet Security lies outside a Federal appointment, and all a Federal appointment of a Czar does is add to the melee and create a frightening incursion into government control of the net. This is the progress of such an appointment: they first 'look into things', then they make recommendations. When the recommendations are not followed, they begin to take action: break up and down monopolies and control such as Google and Microsoft and Sun. Will W3C still set standards if the Government takes hold? Then a government search engine becomes very plausible to ensure 'fairness' as the government finds a couple incidents and tries to convince the public that the search engines are unfair, which they can be. It is a boiling frog mentality, and leads to undue government influence on the net, and later to serious international concerns, for the net is not contained by national boundaries.

A Moderate Solution
I really do believe there needs to be consistent security on the net, although I know where it leads, I am afraid, inevitably. Rather than a CyberCzar, a non-government Resolution and Ombudsman group, containing careful and diverse representation of major Net decision-makers and private companies, along with significant net users such as editors of net newspapers, imminent bloggers, website directors of well known sites, etc, with government representation, able to influence government but not under the auspices of the government seems far safer in addressing National, International and Individual security issues than a new Executive branch appointment. Government does have to come to terms with Cyber Issues, but the US has no inherent rights to the net: it is a conglomeration of private and international interests: any decision the US makes under such a Czar can always be challenged in World Court, due to that international, borderless nature.
If there is to be a Czar, I posit that it should be to advise the Executive branch but have virtually no controlling function over the net or even net security issues. Rather, let the government encourage private endeavors to:

1. Teach local, individual Security Measures Consistently and Centrally
2. Make laws protecting free speech, and ensuring private ownership
3. Alert the general public via a suboffice of Homeland Security as to current viral threats or other issues
4. Work to ensure through traditional constitutional means protection of children on the net through COPPA and other measures.
5. Absolutely without wavering declare primary ownership of sites as the registrant of the DNS, until proven differently in a court of law. Establish a systematic way of processing abuses, like ICANN does.
6. Encourage private measures to provide widespread free and inexpensive security measures such as super secure email accounts for private use of hosting: email is a mainstay of overthrowing accounts and registrations.
7. Train law enforcement on cyber issues: they do not know the law often, they often overstep their bounds, and they take million of hitech manhours as insignificant leaving web workers in despair.
8. Beef up existing well written laws and ENFORCE THEM. I have found the laws are generally not enforced.
9. Do not rush to government control: it will lead to international instability in issues of litigation.
10. If a community or large organization will not comply with internet law (it has happened horribly locally), then use government measures to remove privileges from a community such as federal funding, until they agree to comply. It is the only measure in extreme circumstances which can keep out the worst elements on the net.

Just a last note: in the end, the Czar died, Anastasia couldn't remember who she was, and only Rasputin escaped shootings, poisoning, beatings but in the end died thrown in the river by a few Princes and others. The net has become just a little too dangerous.ekbest

"About the Jews"

Why the Shoah Must Always Be Seen as Being 'about the Jews'

The Last few weeks have offered a juxtaposition of a number of events all of which point to what could happen to considerations of the Holocaust in the Future, and which will certainly affect Shoah Education over the next decade. A week or two ago, USHMM hosted a Presidential Speech and speeches from Eli Wiesel and other holocaust survivors, as well as the director, and a procession of military units whose predecessors were among the liberators at several German camps. Then, the Pope visited and spoke in Israel, at first balking at a visit to Yad Vashem but then condescending, due to an exhibit regarding the role of Pacelli, Pius XII, in the Shoah, and during the visit was met with very mixed reaction, though generally cordial. May 14th marked the 61st Independence Day for Israel. In serendipity I watched a short clip of the 1993 'Schindler's List' the Stephen Spielberg film, when the Soviet soldier arrives at the liberation of the concentration camp, and Stern stands and asks, "Are there any Jews left in Poland?"---the pause answers the horrible question of what has occurred in Europe. I watched later two salient clips of Eva Kor, a Mengele twin survivor, speaking about reconciliation and forgiveness, and one of Eli Wiesel speaking at Yad Vashem in which he made the point that the Holocaust was not merely a humanitarian issue, but must forever remain about the Jews---he remarked that the world did not kill them because they were humans, they killed them because they were Jews. (See Universal lessons of the holocaust)

About the Jews, vs. About Genocide

Whenever one discusses the issue about whether the Shoah was about the Jews or about other humanitarian issues such as genocide, civil rights, treatment of the ill, lame, poor etc, controversy arises, and 65 years after the end of the war, regarding what the Shoah was really about. It shows a somewhat moronic forgetfulness and lack of discernment beginning to creep in during this age of genocide. Rather than put an end to genocide and war, WWII and the Holocaust did little more than set the stage or foretell it: the Shoah was grim prophecy.

Now the varied events first mentioned may seem only vaguely related to the topic, but they are really a synthesis of several issues which arise. Today, at the outset, everyone uses the words 'holocaust' and 'Shoah' too glibly: they are used with regard to abortion, to any genocide, to any catastrophic event, and even to the treatment of chickens. The well meaning but unwise use of the words have ranged from school children to Congressmen, and what they really mean when they use the word 'Shoah' or 'holocaust' is 'great catastrophe' or even mass killing. The Shoah though, bears some marks in history and in the history of God's dealing with mankind, that point to it as 'about the Jews' even though many died of every nationality, and certain groups such as the infirm, Roma Sinti( gypsies), political dissidents, church dissidents, the mentally infirm, and even epileptics, drunkards and 'chronically unemployed' were targeted for the same 'special treatment'. The Shoah though must be kept in focus as an event about the Jewish Nation, and not merely the largest genocide, although it has certainly held its own in that regard.
Since the end of the Shoah, there have been more and not less genocides, of an increasingly cruel and vile nature (as if they were not all), so while the Shoah provides the foretelling and nature of genocide, it must be kept as its own event to be properly understood, and its lessons not lost.

The Modern Mind and the Shoah

Growing up in the United States where many fought in WWII, the Holocaust was not an unknown or under mentioned event, but was often portrayed and described as a ghoulish one, akin to Horror movies, or tales of evil. Hitler, rather than a political leader became the penultimate Evil one, and fascination with the Shoah was more on the level of a horrid fascination, rather than a historical and lived atrocity.
One author noted that the Jews who suffer pogroms and other tragedies often begin to tell the story about 50 years afterward. As American children, we heard only rarely of WWII and only a little of the Shoah. Then came Yad Vashem in 1953, (with American partners in 1981), Simon Wiesenthal Center in 1977, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1993 coupled with Holocaust Studies in Colleges and Universities, Holocaust Education in Schools and Churches, and a number of significant museums and memorials.

Additionally, foundations like VHF, and Fortunoff and others began documenting eyewitness testimonies of Holocaust survivors, rescuers, and even the testimony of liberators and Nazis. As educational efforts increased, so did a more dignified response to the Shoah, although at the same time, so did Holocaust Denial. Then, for all intent and purpose while there had been Holocaust information and news on the 'green screen' web, by 1995 and 1996, the web we know today became feasible and widely used enough to contain real efforts at online Holocaust education. The first efforts were made by such as Shoah Education Project Web (now at shoaheducation.com), Spartacus, History Timeline, Nizkor, USHMM, Mining Company (now About), and many others.Within 4 years , FCIT, Wiesenthal Center's MOTLC , Jewish Virtual Library and many other very fine sites were all working with ways to efficiently provide basic information about the Shoah, with Shoaheducation.com , USHMM and Wiesenthal Center attempting generalist approaches for Introducing Holocaust studies online as opposed to only 'encyclopedic' approaches.

Wikipedia also added extensive and detailed overviews of people, places, things, events and resources although they have not yet collated them into a separate resource. Death_camps.org , shoaheducation.com, Holocaustchronicle.com , ushmm.org and MOTLC all provided introductions to the Killing and Atrocity centers and thousands of sites then detailed individual topics ranging from the burning of the Reichstag to the liberation of Nordhausen and every other imaginable topic. However, for the millions of persons reached, mostly with information services, we still have a general public with a superficial understanding of the Shoah. Though we now have interdisciplinary programs putting out doctoral-level persons in Shoah studies, we have mostly educated those who already believed in the Shoah, and only a little, and hardly changed minds who hold opposing views. While interest in the topic has in the past 2 or 3 years waned somewhat on both sides, a quick review (See Seditionact.com-January 10,2009) shows that Holocaust Tolerance or standard history sites are not faring quite as well as online Denial sites.

As the Tolerance Museums Turn

One notable trend though in the focus of Tolerance Museums, Holocaust Museums, Online and In Class education, is that rather than keeping a focus on what became of the Jews in the Shoah, how the world has treated the Jews over the history of mankind, who the Jews are and a variety of other dynamics, institutions dealing with the topic have been seduced into a generalization of topics , assigning the importance of the Holocaust to what we can learn about genocide and humanitarian efforts, rather than focusing on the Shoah as a uniquely Jewish event. While others were killed and suffered alongside the Jews, there can be no question that the Shoah was focused on erasing the Jewish people in Europe, with a 'clean up' of other imagined threats to Aryan bloodlines. Tolerance efforts have worked so hard to equalize our view of persons, nationalities and races that they sometimes err in not recognizing real differences without pejoration, and having a naive idea of realistic possibilities and probabilities that Tolerance objectives will ever be fully reached. Yet in their effort to 'erase differences', an almost opposite view to 'Master Race' ideologies, several major institutions are losing their focus as Holocaust Museums and learning centers in favor of becoming Centers on genocide studies and civil rights. Please do not misunderstand: those are essential cores of holocaust studies, but they are to be end results and not replacements. Said Eli Wiesel in his speech "Universal Lessons of the Holocaust"

...."I know what people say,
It’s so easy, those that were there---want to agree with that statement, 'it was man's inhumanity to man---No! It was man's inhumanity to Jews! Jews were not killed because they were human beings , in the eyes of the killers they were not human beings. They were Jews---it's because they were Jews. But it was so easy for the killers to kill. You see the pictures...Jews were ordered to dig their own graves. Have we ever had that in history, which is filled with cruelty but not with such cruelty? Have mothers ever been forced to give up their children in order to live, and few mothers chose that! Mothers went with their children, their babies, there are no words. At that time we had the feeling that history had entered into madness, and madness had its own logic, its own destiny, even its own archaeology. And within that madness it was perfectly plausible to kill Jews! And so we go through the museum and we don't understand: all we know is that it happened.
We never tried to tell the tale to make people weep..[...]If we decided to tell the tale it is because we wanted the world to be a better world. Just a better world, and learn, and remember. E. Wiesel, April 2008

The dilemma we face in Holocaust Education, is that as the Shoah fades out of first person view, as the next 10 years will take with it most eyewitnesses, are we to ascribe the Shoah to the general category of genocide, or to understand it in terms of the History and people of the Jews and the world's pathological reaction to them or to try and be naively generous and erase knowledge of the Jews in the world and what has become of them, in order to categorize the Shoah as merely the genocide of the Jews, among the dozens of other genocides since. We run the risk I suppose of seeming intolerant if we separate out the Jews, and some fear we say that the Jews suffered more than others in genocides such as the Hmong in the Killing fields, or those of Bangladesh, Croatia or others, and so they would consider the Shoah one among genocides, noting that other nationalities were killed also. There must be a point of reason though, to both recognize suffering in all genocides, and still be able to understand the very unique existence and plight of the Jews in History and suffering. There are a few differences which do not in any way diminish the sufferings of other peoples, but should be recognized to understand the dynamics of our contemporary systems.

1. The Jews are the only people who have existed in dispersion for 2000 years. Other nationalities and races which were dispersed due to war or catastrophe usually did not maintain their identity beyond a couple of generations.
2. Judaeo-Christian views hold the Jews to be held in divine mystery, a people chosen out by God for His purposes. While the modern mind does not care to entertain this, the view is still held by somewhere between 1/4 to 1/2 of the world. Even Islam notes the Jews in origins.
3. 'Root Race' theories prominent in various forms at times in history but eminently since the late 1800s , in Theosophy, the Thule Society and derivatives, and other 'New Age' philosophies hold a pejorative view of the Jews as a root race which once ended, will usher in a Utopian age and people. The foundation of these ideas greatly affected Nazi philosophies and theologies. Even when disparaging, the centrality of the Jews as an identified group holds. In essence, people who love the Jews, hate the Jews or do not care about the Jews, all hold to some sort of parenthetical status.
4. Socio-Political and Economic focus on Israel, for 2000 years, has been on whether the Jews had an inherent right to their homeland, or whether another people(s) or religion did. All have contended for that tiny piece of property for that long. In the Shoah the struggle was pronounced and heated, with atrocities in Palestine, aliyahs and blockades of immigration, Waffen-SS and Islamic cooperation in carrying out a 'final solution', and Vatican lobbying to keep the Jews from declaring Israel their rightful homeland.
5. The nonstop history of Pogroms against the Jews in every nation they resided
6. The far higher preponderance of banishment from major cities and nations than most other groups, and
7. The unheard of actual return of a people two thousand years after dispersion to their homeland, without any of their own military strength.

While there are other distinguishing factors, even unbelievers would acknowledge that their mere existence is at least a phenomenon hard to explain, as well as the inexplicable hatred and persecution of the 'children of Israel'. They have been often at the helm of discovery, economics, art and literature, politics and war. They have been scapegoated throughout history for minor and major crimes, and have cyclically had their possessions, houses, and businesses confiscated or destroyed. So even aside from the Shoah or how we view it, the Jews stand uniquely in the world, not by their testimony but by all of ours.


Understanding a Jewish Shoah
Even the name 'Shoah' is Hebrew, and outside of a few scholars and museum officials, the Shoah is recognized worldwide as having been 'about the Jews'. Liberal efforts to be so utterly fair and balanced, that we miss the essence of understanding about the Holocaust points to a moronic liberalism. I am not advocating a return to the Dark Ages of racial hatred or division, quite the contrary, that would be bizarre, but we really can in research and teaching, in writing and memorials, maintain the Jewish essence of the Shoah in order to comprehend world systems then and since, rather than blindly assert that the Jews have no distinction in the world at all. To merely breathe that lately brings cries of prejudice, but there has to be an element of common sense, even in research. The Shoah was genocide, but all genocides are not the Shoah. All genocides are unspeakable crimes, and all must be tirelessly combated, but while Holocaust Museums, studies and memorials speak to genocide, that is not their primary concern. That may sound unconscionable to suggest, but there is a great effort afoot to alter the purpose of Holocaust memorials to be not about the Jews and the Shoah, but instead as a moral marker briefly in a world which has not ceased genocide.

This is a dangerous position, for it once again, displaces the Jews in the US and other societies, removing a form of protection of a constantly persecuted people, in favor of a blind erasure of all real differences among persons. Rather than the erasure of racial reference, it is better to recognize the differences crying viva la difference!, appreciating the many expression of God's glory and creation in a diverse world instead of rewriting all of creation into one 'kind', which never works. While Roma Sinti, the Mentally Ill, Political and Religious Dissidents, and some Soviets were killed along with the Jews in the Shoah, 'Endlosung', or "The final solution of the Jewish Question" was about the Jews, and Germanization, Aryanization, Judenrein and Operation Reinhard, were about the Jews, with other agendas on the side.

What if USHMM were not about the Jews?

Not to pick on USHMM, but What if the displays, teaching and research and Memorials at the United States Holocaust Museum were not about the Jews? There have been undertows of that philosophy brewing for years. USHMM is funded partly by private funds and grants, and partly by the Federal Government. I last visited in 1998, and its purpose was still very much in tact, with 'Daniel's House', passports commemorating victims, history, memorials, shoes, walls, rescuers, railcars, etc, but recent years show more and more concern with contemporary genocides instead: a very worthwhile cause, but the balance must not be tipped. I know the temptation: after years of daily studying the Shoah and WWII history and never getting to the bottom of the hundreds of thousands of resources, it is invigorating to put one's hands to the protest of and ending of crises such as Dar Fur, Eritrea, and other current slaughters. If we lose the 'pillar' though of Shoah Studies regarding the Jews and the world's response to the Jews, we aid those who would again grind the gears of Gleichschaltung, by making the Jews first, just one of the crowd, and then an unwanted member of the masses.

When Stern rises and asks , in "Schindler's List" of the Soviet soldier, "Are there any Jews Left in Poland", no words are spoken at first. 'No' would have been an understatement though there were a few left. How could the Jews be gone from the one European nation which harbored them more than any other? All of them? Uri Zvi Greenberg wrote a poem 'Where are the Jews' cited in Wiesel's A Jew Today, in which Jesus is walking the streets of ruined Warsaw, asking "Where are the Jews", and falls to his knees weeping when each query brings the response 'gone', 'gone too'. Turning, the Polish crowd turns, and recognizing 'just another Jew' they turn to kill him, asking 'how did he stay alive?"
The poignant reminder of a world without Jews and the sorrow of God, would not sit among scholars or journals today. The politics of the White House would no doubt prefer through more than one administration a sanitized 'purification' of Tolerance efforts over Holocaust Remembrance, but USHMM and the other centers are a Bulwark against the historical anti-Semitism of the world in one of the last bastions of reasonable life for many Jews. The first step in removing support for Israel with little objection may be the removal of the central nature of the Shoah as the attempted destruction of the Jews on the advent of their return to their promised homeland. Political attempts to remove the Jewish focus in these so called 'tolerant' times are really efforts against tolerance for the Jews, and should be stood against at all cost. It is good to forgive, as Eva Kor posited, but forgiveness of Nazi persecutors yet the Jews bearing the glory of God have always been the first show the pattern and way of God, shown even in the New Testament to be the 'oracles of God'. It is the bearing of that Glory that shows a people, a nation saved apart in captivity for two thousand years and returning to a Promise that must cause us to understand, that the pillars of memorial which we have set must not be moved.

When Israel crossed the Jordan, to take Jericho, the water , just as at the Red Sea subsided and the Ark of the Covenant , the priests and army passed over. They were told to leave 12 stones to mark the work the Lord had done.

Jos 4:8 And the children of Israel did so as Joshua commanded, and took up twelve stones out of the midst of Jordan, as the LORD spake unto Joshua, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel, and carried them over with them unto the place where they lodged, and laid them down there.
Jos 4:9 And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests which bare the Ark of the Covenant stood: and they are there unto this day.

Those stones where stood the chosen priests marking the work of God in coming into the land given them through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were pillars to be remembered forever. Our memorials should stand like those pillars, those stones also. ekbest

Where the Gay Sidewalk ends....Miss California & the Bad Hat

I woke up pontificating this morning--- It's happening more and more. Yesterday, several members of Congress it was announced, now qualify on at least 3 or more major points to be declared as on 'terrorist-watch' by Homeland Security. Why? Because 'extreme views' of any kind, 'over-religiosity' and the opposition to illegal immigration on the Mexican border, to name a few are all criteria now to send up a red flag for profiling. Those who strongly believe there is a 'right' and 'wrong' now qualify in the United States to be tailed, watched, reigned in, and maybe even denied travel. I wish I was being sardonic but I'm not. Not one of those Congressmen are anti-Mexican or anti-Mexican immigration---only against ILLEGAL immigration. Lawmakers were supposed to be on the side of Law, one thinks, not against it.

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (KJV)]

The foundations are being destroyed. So destroyed that fundamentals we have all implicitly held since infancy are all open to question. Foundations like 'if the law holds, the truth holds', or that we are protected in our free speech about ANYTHING. We have always advocated and stood for across the board Civil Rights and Freedom of Speech and the practice of religion, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, whether or not one agreed with the person or issue involved.

. My own faith is Christian, what the world refers to as 'born-again' (the only kind), although I was once a raging liberal existential type. What has mattered to me in both cases is that people be free to follow their paths unencumbered as long as the very reasonable guard rails of society hold. We aren't to physically hurt one another, or destroy another with words or incite riot. We are to recognize the very righteous boundaries of personhood and ownership regardless of race , creed or color. We are also to uphold honor and 'right ways' as ensigns of a healthy society. Some cry 'you can't legislate morality' and I say, that is what we do legislate! Freedom though has always been the zenith of our societal goals, with safety closely in tow.


Real Tolerance

I have stood by most aspects of what is deemed 'tolerance': taught my children that while race makes one unique, that 'God is no respecter of persons'. No east nor west, no male nor female, no Jew nor Gentile, etc, when it comes to valuing a person or allowing them to journey through their lives, with the one proviso that no group, liberal nor conservative may so overtake the 'deciding factor' as to force their beliefs on another. NO GROUP, including those politically in favor, or 'correct', a dangerous misnomer. As such, I have stood by the rights of all, from Afro-Americans, to the Jews, liberals, conservatives, and even people like Randy Weaver, Zundel, Pro-Palestinians even though I downright hate what some of them believe and work against it non-stop. My children were taught when young that the Truth has a life of its own and does not need to be shouted down, sequestered or forbidden or banned: the light of the truth will stand against the most sinister sophistry, and therefore does not have to be bound or outlawed. Some a person can dialogue with and some one cannot, but decently and in order, free speech, even of extreme positions has always been allowed. If a dangerous position begins to arise, one can vote it down, boycott, walk away or any other form of legal protest. Civil disobedience for Christians is sometimes necessary but may only be used when to obey a man-made law requires disobeying God's laws.

In light of those 'basics' while I hold very strong opinions on some issues which are not 'politically correct', I am astounded over the past several years at how the law is being tossed aside, Civil Rights becoming a farce, the truth twisted or hidden beyond belief, and major factions of society who lobbied for their civil rights, gaining them ,only to forcibly deny other people theirs.

Miss California and the US-Gay Pageant

At the outset I am pro-civil rights for homosexuals as for all, but not at all pro-gay lifestyle. My trust in the Word of God does not allow the condoning of what I consider immoral practices. That is a BELIEF. I have a right to believe that gay lifestyles are unhealthy and even sinful, and lead a person into life-ruining dissension. I hold the right to state that openly. I do not have a right to harm or hurt, deny opportunities, employment or any rights to persons of a homosexual persuasion, and no one should be allowed to physically harm anyone, of any type or kind. It goes both ways, though, or it doesn't work. One ravel and the garment falls apart. It is with consternation then that I express even outrage at the way Miss California was treated in the Miss USA pageant.

I am not particular, either toward beauty pageants. Too often they demean the personhood of women, allowing them to be judged on outward appearances and as 'objects' more than as valued human beings but that is for another time. In the recent Miss USA pageant, though, an interchange so unjust occurred that I cannot but stand alongside many others in defense of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, in her right first not to have been asked the alarming question, and secondly, in not having to be assaulted for her dignified answer, because an gay judge, Perez Hilton , in a very aggressive stance, did not like her BELIEFS. Her answer, quite frankly was fairly nonplussed, and remarked at least vaguely on equal rights, while upholding her own position:

"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," "No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman."

The Question and the Gay Lobby

Over the years there have been a lot of questions asked in that Pageant. "What do you want most for the world?", or even this year other questions were about mildly 'discussable' political events, but no one else was asked, for example about abortion, or the holocaust, or any other topic which raises armaments on both sides. I cannot understand why a gay rights extremist was even among the judges of what has been traditionally seen as a heterosexually-oriented event, or why the question was put forward to a born-again Christian (by her profession). More and more, events and podiums are being turned into forums on the 'gay' question, which had nothing to do with gay rights. Churches, especially evangelical churches, are becoming targets of Sunday morning 'rushes' where gay activists run into the
sanctuary handing out gay rights literature even during sermons and collections. Churches and Synagogues and other places of worship have traditionally been considered 'off limits' to outside disruptors of any kind but particularly to those of opposite beliefs. So why the question, and why to her? They know ahead of time the background of the young women, usually with in depth searches. They also are quite clear that Christians of a more conservative nature do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. The question was not even about civil rights per se but about gay marriage, which even some who believe in the former do not endorse as a 'fabric of society' issue. And why the element of an embarrassing question? The other questions were not asked with the same demeanor. And why a gay judge posing the question? It stinks of 'agenda', and the pageant was not the place for it.

Miss California and Her Civil Rights

The outlandish reaction and over attention to the small remark which actually endorsed freedom of choice, but personally endorsed monogamy, was the utter right of free speech for Miss California, Ms. Prejean, and it was not Hilton's rights which were violated in any way, but Prejean's. She was graded down for her remarks because they did not express the will of the pro-gay activists. Further, she has since been targeted violently in the press, and even some photos with her back showing have been made into a bit of riotousness. In my view, those photos are not up to the standards of modest apparel for a Christian woman, but that is not the issue. The issue is the contestant stood up for her very normal beliefs, and was crucified in the press fore MERELY HAVING THE BELIEF, not just expressing it. It has been a nonstop hate crime against her right to both be a representative of a State or the US, and hold a very traditional belief that millions hold. Millions.

Controversy is one thing, and disagreement another but lambasting someone who is a reasonably tolerant person because she does not believe that a marriage contract extends to two same sex persons, is a violation of HER civil rights, not theirs.

There is a militant overtone or outright militancy by some gay rights organizations and lobbies. They are not willing to accept mere legislation or Civil Rights like the rest of us, they want you to be forced to agree that their lifestyles are moral and righteous and many, many just will not extend them that privilege, any more than we will extend it to other 'lifestyles' with which we disagree. This is not the first public crucifixion on the topic. Dr. Laura came out on her talk show several years ago, declaring that it was not a healthy lifestyle in her eyes and beliefs, and gay activists tried to run her off the air. Anita Bryant many years ago made a small remark and the Orange Growers Association was lobbied to ditch her as representative.


The militancy extends further, and may include interruption of church services, open lewdness and anti-religion displays in 'Gay Pride Parades', for which families who attend are never prepared , physical assaults (it goes both ways), and even setting up conservatives to look gay, because they know it will ruin them among their own kind. Deliberate and planned seduction of young people in families who are religious or conservative is also occurring and a whole lot of us are saying, wait, stop, this is not a 'right' for anyone or any position, and tolerance while one of our highest goals does not mean we have to adopt or agree with those very different from us and our beliefs.

I would fight vehemently for the rights of AIDS patients for gracious care and mercy, for equal opportunity in housing and jobs, and the right of any gay person not to be physically assaulted because they are gay. Please understand , that though I will fight also for persons who are assaulted because they lead conservative moral lives and do not want either themselves nor their children deceitfully seduced into a destructive and lewd lifestyle just so I can appear more tolerant than others. It is not a lifestyle of just Jane liking Judy, or Tim liking Glen, but the society of the gay person involves a whole lot more than most persons, even liberal straight persons would tolerate or want for themselves or families.

Homosexuality Over Time
Homosexuality has always been with us, that is certain, since recorded history. It almost always flares up though toward the end of a powerful but decadent society such as Rome, Greece, or now the US. It appears in animal experiments of 'overcrowding'. The Bible refers to homosexuals as 'sodomites' after the city of Sodom which was destroyed for its lasciviousness. It is warned against throughout the Scriptures as spiritual reprobacy , a threshold which once crossed makes a relationship with God near impossible. While some try and twist scriptures to make it sound o.k., such as trying to make David and Jonathon lovers, or worse, no case of homosexual behavior is ever endorsed and intimate friendships between men can and were healthy and whole without being gay. It is hard enough to live in these days and times as a celibate single person of either gender, even in the Christian world, because attributions are often made about any single person being gay and yet very often it is quite the opposite for those leading productive and disciplined lives. The gay lobby has been effective and pervasive, and has deeply imbedded itself in all levels of our culture.

In the 1940s and before, homosexuality was seen as a personality disorder in the DSM, or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the APA, an issue for treatment. By the time of the Kinsey report, Kinsey suggested that close to 10% of the population was gay or had that leaning, but it caused quite a stir in the 50s and early 60s as no one could believe there was such a preponderance. APA's DSM changed points of view, as psychological diagnosis often wavers with political expediency. Then, homosexuality was partially discluded as a gender issue in which it was a disorder only if one was dissatisfied with the leanings. It opened the floodgates to such a rash of 'anything goes' that many abandoned membership in the APA not on that issue alone, but the APA Monitor even ran articles on transcultural acceptance of pedophilia, and other aberrations. Efforts to be tolerant do not necessitate efforts to endorse immorality or allow even sadistic behavior to the young because it involves some valueless point of view, or psychological makeup: some 'psychological makeups' are dangerous. They destroy societies.

Miss CA and the Bad Hat

So to the 'Bad Hat' who will not allow Miss California to be herself or hold her own beliefs without a criminal assault on her character nationwide: back off. You hurt your own cause when you do that. That's so gay...I mean so 'girl with skirt as a shirt'. This is where the Gay Sidewalk ends... Freedom of Speech: yes. Freedom of belief : yes, for all. Freedom to crush those who do not like you lifestyle: No. Absolutely not, and I am not alone in that belief.

Obama at USHMM: America needs repentance, not accolades

Today I watched the carefully choreographed presentation of a number of rescuers, statesmen, military liberators, survivors and Museum folk on streaming video from USHMM, speaking as they should, upholding the dignity of persons in a world gone mad with violence and a complex and schizoid way of dealing with conflict. Eli Wiesel spoke, as well as some others, preceding the address of the President, who invoked the examples of LeChambon and American liberators of the concentration camps, here, some 64 years after most of the liberations were complete in 1945, and the war at least officially came to an end.

Amidst the hush of a respectful crowd in a cool semi-lit conference room at USHMM, a military guard marched in bearing their ensign banners and flags and much of the talk was of the great things Americans and the US Military had done in the Shoah, along with the selfless deeds of some rescuers who now reside here. Mention was made as expected of the horror of marching into the Killing and Atrocity Centers and finding the depths to which humankind can sink, and Wiesel remarked poignantly on the day his father was told they would be going to an unknown location called Auschwitz, not knowning what awaited, after they turned down a offer to escape. A very moving rendition of the Kaddish, the prayer of mourning and praise was cantored.

Though there was certainly nothing wrong with the ceremony, and in fact much quite right, I could not help but wonder though, if here in the United States of America, we should be canonizing our efforts in the Shoah, just as the Vatican is considering canonizing PiusXII, with self-congratulations over the marginal efforts of a Oswego, or Military liberations of the German camps, or give ourselves credit for the real selfless acts of rescuers and liberators who emigrated here after the war. One walked away feeling like were it not for the US, the Jews and the other poor souls who were victimized would never have been rescued and the world would not have been safe for Democracy. On the surface, it is invigorating and nationalistic, with warm feelings all around.

Accolades or Repentance? Which is Closer to Reality?

While the tender music played though, and while the testimonies were given, with the great and critical call for understanding and education, I felt a great sense of alarm at what was not being said, and for what in this day and time will probably never be said openly: that while we should indeed laud the liberators and rescuers, America has a far greater need to repent for their role in the Holocaust than to congratulate itself for its 'honorable' stance. Part of the latter is myth, archetype and even fairy tale, and it does not aid a world in need of self-assessment and contemplation, instead of self-given awards.

And it is with great concern, or perhaps 'burning concern', that we should consider that Germany also, at the end of WWII, did not feel any need to repent for its actions during the Shoah, nor did even many of its Church leaders, and it was only by the Call in the Stuttgart Confession by Neimoller and others in the inception of the WCC, that even the clergy were begged to consider whether the church had given in to the Spirit of force and retaliation or the Spirit of God. We look back now and wonder how could they not see the need for repentance, with millions of innocents dead and wounded, with their own nation, people and churches ruined and bombed, having followed a lunatic into hell with no redeeming end, how could they not have repented, and yet many would not. Years later, finally, a move of true hearts of Jews and Christians, for the past several years have yearly, solemnly walked the paths of the death marches from a number of camps, praying and repenting for Germany and humankind's role in the Shoah.

Why Does America Need to Repent? (of its role in the Shoah)

Most in the United States on the surface will find it untenable that one should even suggest that the US needs to repent of anything during the Shoah: we were the good guys, right? We were the ones who liberated Mittelbau Dora and Nordhausen, Buchewald and Dachau with many others, who brought down top level Nazis, and sieged Berlin. We were the ones who sacked Nazi technology and stolen loot returning much to owners: We brought the war criminals to speedy and just trials, and with Britain, we aided and supported Israel in its bid for statehood and homeland. What on earth do we have to repent for? The question of why repent comes because so much of US involvement in the Shoah is still not known to its citizens or to much of the world. However as scholars uncover more and more of the dynamics in 'world systems' behind and during the Shoah, one can no longer deny the outright complicity of the US in aiding in the rise of the Third Reich, the start of the War, the reluctance to enter on either side, the funding of the war, the technology of the war , use of slave labor, and the prolonging of the war: our efforts at a few rescues seem paltry in light of that complicity.

The Sins of America in the Shoah

Below are a number of reasons, the US needs to serious repent of its actions during the Shoah.

1. We drew up the bridges of Immigration at the onset of the War.
In the legislature, even when we began to hear of immigration problems for the Jews, there was a great reluctance to receive Jewish citizens. While German and polish police made it impossible for many Jews to immigrate, our Congress did even worse by severely limiting quotas, and some senators even suggested stopping all immigration both to keep us out of the war and because anti-semitic feeling was widespread. Claude Pepper tirelessly lobbied for Jewish immigration as a benevolent act, but did not prevail.

2. We turned away the St. Louis, a rescue ship

Related to #1, when a ship of several hundred Jews escaped from Nazi persecution, we left them in Havana bay on the St. Louis, refusing to allow them refuge. The ship was turned back to Europe where most onboard were sent to Auschwitz.

3. We gave only token support and maybe worse at the Evian Conference
FDR did not send a 'legal' emissary to the Evian Conference, the conference which was to decide where Jewish persons escaping the Third Reich could find refuge, but instead sent his friend, Myron Taylor, a former CEO of US Steel. US Steel was affiliated with Silesian Steel and Mines, using slave labor in the Auschwitz-Birkenau-Monowitz-Furstengrube complex. The US took none at the conference although later through the nonstop lobbying of Ruth Gruber about 965 were allowed to live in a detainment camp in Oswego, NY. (out of 12 million needing asylum)

4. Many Eminent Americans Openly supported the Third Reich
There has always been a large contingent of German heritage in the US and at the time of the war, about 35-40 million claim all or half German heritage. Swastikas, before they took on their sinister symbology graced many signs the way Christian 'fish' signs or crosses grace Christian owned businesses. German bunds were by in large anti-Semitic, even holding large marches and rallies. Open air speeches even in Madison Square Garden were given by the Nazi, Fritz Kuhn, and Father Coughlin, an American priest gave virulent broadcasts condemning the Jews and support thereof. Charles Lindbergh, the great American hero of flight, lobbied for the Third Reich and received awards from Hitler, as did George Miller, a novelist whose book, I found No Peace propagandized the US.
Henry Ford was openly complicit with the Third Reich and outspoken in their defense. These were but a few of the eminent citizens who supported Hitler.

5. American Capitalists consorted with Ruhr Industrialists in the prewar era to fund the rise of Hitler and the NSDAP.

At the end of WWI, Germany was impoverished because of the war debt incurred on them by the War Guilt Clause of the Versailles Treaty. Wall Street Capitalists colluded with Industrial giants in Bavaria to rebuild Germany and help fund the NSDAP or Nazi Party.

6. Wall Street Tycoons and American Business Poured Millions Into Nazi Germany even in violation of Wartime acts.
The famous 'Bush-Dulles' controversy had to do with the great grandfather of George W. Bush and John Foster Dulles (his brother the Cardinal Avery Dulles), W. Harriman and their link, Fritz Thyssen, the primary financier of Hitler. Many Wall Street businessmen believed Hitler would be good also for the US economy and recovery from the devastation of WWI and the Great Depression. Millions of dollars poured over seas and the extremely complex net of US support for industry, business and the war effort in Germany prospered, including later in the war, hand in hand use of slave labor.

7. American Businesses Which Aided and Abetted the Death of 11.5 million Innocents.
Ford not only supported Hitler and the Third Reich, but provided technology and streamlined production of Ford products and concepts which eventually contributed to the development of mini-tanks used against American soldiers! We said, 'buy American' and then supported a company who aided and abetted the enemy. Speer was put on trial and imprisoned for prolonging the war, and received a hefty sentence, but Ford who had taught the concept of a production line, received accolades not a war crimes trial. IBM developed the "Hollerith Machine" a tabulation machine without which the massive genocide would not have been possible for it allowed the streamlining of processing victims to deportation, slavery and the camps. DuPont, Standard Oil (Exxon), and other companies held the vast number of shares in a company called DeGussa, which was a subsidiary of I.G. Farben, which was the main thrust behind the use of slaves in Auschwitz for mining, chemical manufacturing, coal and oil, including the production of Zyklon-B which caused the deaths of millions in the gas chambers. Bayer Co, the aspirin folks, solicited and used hundreds of women for experiments killing them when through. These are only a few examples.



8. Slavery

While we have already mentioned the use of slaves at the Auschwitz complex and others, US companies also availed themselves of free slave labor or the purchase of slaves in collusion. So did the Catholic Church, who recently had to pay restitution.

9. We helped keep the Luftwaffe flying
Recently a fellow from MIT produced a report that showed that Standard Oil sold a component chemical to the Luftwaffe near the end of the war. Had they not sold the chemical, it is estimated that the war might have ended by 1.5 years earlier.

The quote is as follows:

This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors. I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The planes that made up the Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gasoline in order to fly. At the time, only Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors had the ability to produce this vital substance. In 1938, Walter C. Teagle, then president of Standard Oil, helped Hermann Schmitz of I.G. Farben to acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany.


From: "A People's History of the United States", The Thistle
http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html

9. While in the end in the Truman administration we strongly on paper supported an Israeli Homeland, the support was circumvent and possibly not there for real at all during the FDR administration. The Holy See had the constant ear of FDR during those years, and a man mentioned before, FDR's friend and confidant Myron Taylor, was representative to the Vatican, securing an "Honorary Rome Citizenship" for FDR during the height of the deaths in Auschwitz when we well knew. September 1943 the Jews of Rome were deported: November 1944, FDR was awarded an honorary citizenship. Further, the apostolic delegate Cicagniano lobbied consistently in the US under the auspices of Pacelli and Maglione in Rome, for the US not to support a homeland for Israel! This is not speculation but is clearly stated in the letters of the Pro Nuncio. They argued that the Jews had no inherent right to Palestine, albeit they saw themselves having Eminent Domain to Jerusalem and surrounds. Several key Catholic figures figured here and in Germany and Rome regarding the 'slow code' back to Israel including Pacelli, Maglione, Cicagniano, Von Papen and Myron Taylor with a host of others. Pacelli during the Shoah appointed ultraconservative Bishops and Cardinals in the US during that time, aiding the Roman Catholic position of no homeland for Israel. (Myron Taylor's letters are available online)

10. At the end of the war, we immediately gave refuge to over 10.000 Nazis including war criminals, carte blanche and even Eichmann was reported in South Florida in the 1950s. Jewish immigration though remained difficult, and while we ended up endorsing Statehood for Israel, Jews were continuously 'watched' here and within less than 10 years the same rhetoric of Jews being Communists emerged resulting in the McCarthy era and again hurting Jews in the US. Further there is some evidence of 'modernized' Jews being given far more leeway in immigration and citizenship that more Orthodox and 'Old world' Jews, and yet the latter were far greater in number.

11. While we deported and tried known war criminals, the efforts were less than stellar, and many lived their lives out comfortably in the US under assumed names well into the elderly years, often being tried or jailed in their 80s. Many records were sealed, and after some years, searches ceased. Nazi influence and technology though grew and affected the US greatly, and through certain financiers such as Ahmed Huber, Nazi, Neo-Nazi groups and Islamic groups were joined in a mutal effort of a new 'final solution. We are Israel's best friend (?) and worst nightmare.

Streaming Video and Streaming Repentance

As I watched President Obama speak of the refuge of LeChambon, a French Huguenot refuge, and listened to Wiesel talk about what might have been in a world which has closed its eyes but stayed at the edge of that Abyss called the Shoah, as we all sat in the cool comfort and quiet in different chairs and stands, watching 'streaming video' live events 1000 miles away, at first I reacted impulsively with a reaction of "isn't that good---Rescuers, Survivors, Liberators and a President remarking we must not forget, and that in the words of one speaker, we must strive to live in a world where we do not have to light candles of remembrance. That is a dream, and a vision, isn't it? It will not come true on this earth. I am a pacifist of the first order, the kind who fears God, yet I also know that all people will never change and we have had genocide after genocide on this earth AFTER the Shoah, never learning, and never changing our hearts. We are beginning to look foolish and falter crying 'Never Again', for the 20th or 30th time in 65 years, with the deaths in the Killing fields of Cambodia, the Karen of Burma, Armenia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Uganda, and many with significant but lesser numbers. After a few million deaths beyond when we said 'Never Again', we start the words but they fall in our mouths. "Repentance" means to 'turn away' or 'to turn around' as in 'to go another way'. We have to admit we have done wrong, and 'go another way', or all our beautiful, gracious words, will only fall on more deaf ears, from all nations, all with a sword in their hand, waiting for the reason they must kill another people. Love doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry, Love means BEING sorry, and so changing that we would lay down our lives that the next genocide would truly meet the great cry of 'never again'. ekbest.

The Unthinkable---

FAITH THAT SURVIVES THE UNTHINKABLE

Persecution.com

While most today are focused on the economy and energy issues, the media hides or at least does not well address, the degree of suffering which is being encountered by real life Martyrs: people, not unlike those you like and love, who are standing for a cause, or for their faith, and facing circumstances, in the 21st century which rivals that of first century Christianity, or of the concurrent persecution of the Jews by Rome. While it is often said that people are still people and do not change, there were truly a few differences back then: first, the early disciples had really seen the events described, and would face horrible deaths rather than return to unbelief, and secondly, death, and even martyrdom was not unheard of: there were many who counted causes, some cause, so worthy as to be willing to lay down one's life for it. The Roman Soldiers then were no less nor more brutal than today though we would like to believe that, and while we think that open crucifixions are beyond us in our 'civility' nothing could be further from the truth: we have every form of torture, horror and sadistic death now as then, and we have even somewhat expanded our horizons with massive occult-tainted deaths.

I read regularly about Christian and Jewish persecution around the world, and free speech issues, and get reports emailed to me about persons who have committed such horrible crimes as teaching about God's love, refusing to bow when passing the statue of an emperor (still now as then), or passing out pamphlets by bike at the Beijing Olympics. One attorney in China recently, was tortured so vilely and violently nonstop for 10 days, that beyond it being a wonder that he survived, it is a wonder that his torturers could bear it. His crime? Defending the free speech and religious rights of his fellow countrymen---not in terrorist attacks, or in seditious activities--- but by the laws and constitution of China. There were burnings and beatings, physical alterations to his body, and indescribable cruelties . Christian attorney Gao Zhisheng was accused of being apart of the 'mob' the term his jailers used to refer to a group named Falun Gong, a large and growing organization promoting 'spiritual exercises', who often meditate in public. Falun Gong is not the mob, nor is it Christianity, but China worries about both, and because both involve disciplined lives, worship and quiet practice, to the untrained eye members of either may be mistaken for one another. The account may be found at ChinaAid.org and there are other accounts of others who have suffered such as 'Pastor Bike', and Harry Lee
(Jaws of the Dragon) [OMS) and more from around the world noted daily by Voice of the Martyrs. In places where great moves of the Church are taking place, almost invariable great persecutions follow: Eritrea Christians , Sudanese Christians, Christians in the Chiapas Mexico area, are a few and recently, notice was given that Extremists had killed over 500 Indian Christians, destroying homes and driving 50,000 into the jungles, with beatings and brutal rapes in the wake of the persecutions. (Gospel For Asia). In Tanzania, young Christian women who convert from Islam are being kidnapped and incarcerated and 're-educated'. Most when they accept Jesus, Yshua, as their Lord and Savior, do not imagine what they might possibly confront for saying, and meaning "Yes, I believe", though they intellectually acknowledge that great suffering is possible.

Over Here, in America

It would be easy to write a modern update of Hebrews 11 based on what is happening to real Christians in today's world: Christians who would not turn back from Love so great and so real, that they could see it no other way. In many countries, to come to faith in the Messiah means to be cut off from family and friends, even exiled, or to receive beatings or even to be raped (male or female) or tortured and killed. Yet they persevere. Some turn back. Some get right back up, regain their health and composure and move forward. Yet here in the United States in our American Church Culture (it is more that than the real Church), we have cultivated an attitude toward belief and suffering that is quite dangerous. It goes something like this, and may be found in the philosophies of Rod Parsley, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and even a modicum in preachers like Charles Stanley, Hagee ( just to name a few) and other 'moderates', that though they may preach and teach occasionally otherwise, the belief that has been promoted widely and implicitly, is that if you are in God's will and way, you will prosper, avoid suffering, receive blessings, have your life in order, and that people who because they are open about their faith are suffering job loss, persecutions, poverty, slander, lawsuits, or as in the rest of the world beatings, tramplings, rape or even death, are somehow not right with God, or have been disobedient to God, and should not be listened to or heeded.

In America we think we are being persecuted if we have a late night prayer service in a home with rock and roll guitars blaring and someone asks the police to have us turn the volume down. That is obviously not real persecution. There is though in the US blatant and real persecution of those who refuse to proverbially 'throw incense to the Emperor', so to speak. There are Christians and Jews who are being beaten to death for their faith. There are young Christians who have lived a very pure and disciplined life who are cruelly mocked, bullied and worse by classmates who live anything but a pure life, and true walking Christians, such as home-schoolers (though the movement has grown) still have to worry about some Social Worker showing up at their door , clipboard in hand like an ancient saber, ready to defy gravity in finding fault and taking away children from very good and decent homes while returning even badly abused children to the homes that abused. One cannot say the targeting is not ideological at some point. As in other parts of the world, true believers are being cast into mental hospitals for such great crimes as 'over-religiosity' i.e. daily bible reading and prayer, or believing that 'God' or a 'Spirit' is 'telling them something' or given them direction, etc. What's a poor Pentecostal to do? Additionally there is often a violent affect to those who persecute, and very often, there is no appeal.

The Christians we see on TV and in local lukewarm congregations are not the ones out there really taking a stand, obeying the LORD and making a difference: many of those have been driven out of Churches whose main aim is building a new social hall or getting exercise equipment. Often, even the 'Christian Civil Liberties' groups, quick to protest state Capitols over manger scenes and the Ten Commandments, won't even represent street preachers or bloggers, acting the same toward them as the rest of the world: as if they are nutcases, destroying their perfect but precarious perch, where you can say yes to the Lord, but still live your life as you always have. Eventually the wind blows one way or the other. Real Christian suffering almost always ends up solitary.


Surviving Christian Faith

While noting the great degree of persecution that is out there for the faithful, there remains the critical issue of how to confront the "Unthinkable" : the things that happen in the life of a believer, that are real faith-breakers for most people. I am not hateful towards those pastors and ministries I have mentioned, because there are hundreds more, and even in our own walk, we start believing that God will alleviate every suffering, right every wrong, and comfort every sorrow. We take scriptures such as 'I will never leave you nor forsake you" to mean that He will never let anything bad happen. I am not rewriting Yancy's book on suffering, or the dear Rabbi's book on 'Bad things happening to Good People', but I have learned in 24 years of belief, that the one thing more likely to ruin real faith than any other, is the belief that if you believe and walk right, obeying the commands of God, growing, walking in love, and so on, that there are certain things that could never happen.

I have worked, in my lifetime, with migrant farm children in the depths of poverty, families grieving stillborns, widows and widowers, holocaust survivors, and been confronted by indigence, the homeless and the mentally ill. In my own life I have had a daughter who developed Juvenile Diabetes at 6 and a half years old, with three shots a day, and trips to the hospital fighting ketoacidosis or coma, divorce and starting life over, sometimes extreme poverty and unemployment not because I was unqualified nor unskilled but because other people did not like what I believed. I have been criminally slandered, and ostracized to the nth degree, and in recent times far worse although that discourse is for another time, but in sum, I have walked through events in life which almost broke my faith and break most people's faith, including losing everything more than once (and worse). When I gave my life to the LORD, many years ago, I was on my way up, successful in my professional career, becoming well known in my area, speaking at national and international conferences, but when I said I believed, I meant it, and the command to 'follow me' does not take any of us where we expect. I was moved though to write this, to help those who have been through or are now facing unspeakable cruelties, the 'unthinkable', to help them understand that the 'normal' Christian life is not horrible things, but filled to the brim with them, and that it is far more abnormal not to have some real faith-breakers confront you in your life.

The Rain Falls
The New Testament teaches the following:

for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matt 5:45

A good deal of life happens not because of the designation of that thing by God, though he allows it, but because certain things are the stuff of life. Jesus remarks also when asked about those that died in the fall of the tower of Siloam, that they did not sin more or less than any others to deserve that untimely death. How can we justify then, a totally sovereign God? All things are under Him without question. Yet even God mentions in the book of Isaiah, that trouble will gather that is NOT of Him:

Isa 54:15 Behold, they shall surely gather together, [but] not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake.

Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew [it] not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

Some trouble and heartache we inherit by our own actions: sin and bad choices and lack of obedience, there is no doubt. More trouble and even the 'unthinkable' happen because it is a world that hates God and all that is related to God. Thousands may gather at rallies and sing about the Love of God, but only a remnant really understand. One is just as likely to be done in, turned over to authorities, physically hurt, etc by a fellow Christian or person of like faith, as by an unbeliever. When we come to faith, we essentially, whether we realize it or not become commissioned as infantrymen in His battlefield. We WILL fight the wars He fought, although there were obviously some only he could fight.

The teaching of the "Great Exchange" has been lost in this generation: dying to self, means not just a little self-discipline here and there to do something we don't want to do, but that we have EXCHANGED our lives for His: we are His hands, and eyes, and mouth and feet, we are His to live through as He pleases. And when we do, we are not lost to who we are, or what we are---we do not cease to be ourselves. When we do surrender to that degree, the end product is Joy unspeakable ; we live even now, ahead of time, in His presence where there is rest.

I read recently of Richard Wurmbrand, the founder of Voice of the Martyrs who suffered torture and lengthy imprisonment in Romania, turned in by a fellow pastor in the underground church. Betrayal hurts worse than the suffering. He could not see the forthcoming global ministry he would have attending to the needs of suffering believers. If it had happened in the U.S. there would have been a bevy of Job's comforters (accusers) showing him where he went wrong. Real Christianity though, cannot if we really believe, be brushed aside for prosperity and 'modern' Gospels: there is no such thing as a 'modern' Gospel, only a real 'Gospel'. We just want a Gospel without suffering and to slightly misquote Bonhoeffer, "Discipleship without cost".


During the Orissa, India raid in 500 were killed and homes destroyed, their persecutors raped their women. Christian mothers and daughters, some young girls who had never even held a little boy's hand for the first time. Were mauled and mistreated: It did not matter to the rioters: they had degenerated into almost soulless beings. Yet for many Christians, if that occurred, their reasoning would be "Where was God?" "Why would a good and powerful God, if He loved me, let that happen?". Many in our soft and senseless form of belief, rail against God, with shaking fists against what they perceive as injustice in not allowing their lives to continue without pain. When something outright 'grotesque' happens, many turn away, thinking they were either not real believers, or that God was angry, or that it was beyond their comprehension, and so they give up and cease seeking or following God, figuring they can have the same or less trouble on their own.

Many who hate Christianity and Christians and do not even know why, become even more violent towards real believers than others---They are fighting belief, and the power and presence of God, and though they may not be able to articulate it to themselves, they try persecution, then 'spiritual rape', and then even cruel attacks and lewd attacks to try and get away from how unholy they feel in the presence of real believers. They do not hate the kind of churchgoer whois accusatory, finding fault, condemning all but themselves, but the kind that walk in love and peace and wish harm to none. They want to kill them, to wish them dead, so that the warfare in their own spirits will go away.

Internal Warfares

The internal warfare can be relieved by belief and repentance (turning away) but they will not trust, and so the internal warfare becomes external, directed towards everything that even reminds them of God. What did Jesus, Yshua teach in Israel? What did He teach that bought for Him a death penalty? Overthrow? Blowing up the Roman Empire? Tearing down the Temple or dethroning Caiaphas? While He made His feelings clear about those folks, He advocated no overthrow at all, but wished to establish the normal and natural order of Israel. Did he take up arms? No He gave orders mostly not to, and healed a man, Malchus whose ear was cut by a sword. He healed a centurion's son. Saved a tax collector--the greatest miracle. He healed and they chased him out of town attempting first to push Him off a cliff. In the end, He received the most published account of beating , ridicule and torture known in history. Because He sinned?

A story is told of a mother passing by a Catholic crucifix on an Easter morning and her little girl looked up to the Cross at the bleeding Savior and asked her mother, "What did he do wrong?" "It must have been really bad". The little girl, as do we all equate bad occurrences, horrible occurrences with punishment. To survive this world as believers we have to let go of the idea that when violence or heartache occurs to us it is a punishment. It is not. It is warfare against a soldier who is Christ's hand and in Christ's hand in this world.

Trial and Tribulation

Jesus, Yshua said we would have trial and tribulation. That was a promise. The TV preachers and many local ones, always stop at standing for Christ if there is cost. We can't remove the flag from the altar, two of our deacons are servicemen and it would be 'un-American'. We can't refuse to register as a 5013c corporation, the government would persecute us. We can't refuse to sit on a faith-based initiative board, it would ruin our career, and beside EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT OUR WAY. That declaration, repeated often was a death knell in the church.

The real reason though for writing this entry, putting aside for the moment issues in Holocaust studies, was that

1. The persecution against Christians and Jews is greatly increasing, just as worship in the two bodies is,
and
2. We can not give up, nor allow our Christian/Jewish brothers and sisters to give up in the face of 'faith-breakers', the unthinkable things which challenge all we believe.

Over the past few years, I have learned a little in surviving some 'outrageous fortune' which confronts the steadiness and trust our faith demands. These are some practical means of survival in the Spirit and are in need of teaching, so that our 'faith fails us not'.

1. Stop believing that horrible things that happen are all judgments of God. Some are, but many more are the normal warfare of the believer.

2. Stop thinking that the worst events of life cannot happen to you even if you read your Bible every day, pray and go to church. Those things may provoke the worst of men.

3. Stop thinking that living a true and pure life excludes you from being confronted with lewd and lascivious people and actions. Those actions which others commit in front of you or even toward your person are not your doing and will not be held to your account. They are occurring all over the world to clean-living people, in part to horrify them. Screaming and yelling is exactly what they want. Withstand it in the name of the Lord.

4. Do not take the death of a loved one, especially who was a believer, as God's wrath. Death is a natural and normal part of life. Old men and infants both die from natural causes which tear the heart out: while God has and exercises His sovereign will over life and death, not all deaths are in any way a judgment of God.

5. Set your face like flint. Here's the apex of faith I have learned: one does not have to think or feel about the horrible incidents of life in any way but the way you choose. Do you ache and sorrow and despair over the horror of the thing? Then cry, and if you like, scream (preferably alone, as most do not receive it well). Later, when you have moments of numbness, realize you can choose your reactions. I am not talking about artificial zen like ethereal stuff, but real choices: "I will not blame God" (for :making it happen, letting it happen, not stopping it from happening etc). You can decide to REFRAIN from making decisions about how you feel about God and your faith until you know more. I am not suggesting hiding feelings ; they should be honestly expressed. Determine in your heart you will not turn back.

6. Suffer, and even mourn, but refuse constant Despair. Those who have been in the throes of despair understand that this is not said superficially---life can deal some hands so deadly, that living a moment further does not seem desireable. Losing meaning and purpose, all that we love, and seemingly the future, blocks out the sun, and if accompanied by torture and pain, most give up the will to live. C.S. Lewis once noted that he thought himself a stalwart Christian as did most of the world, until his wife died, and he compared his faith to a 'house of card's which fell quickly down. The swift reactions to either despair and unbelief or to even hate God for taking what we love from us, but those are infantile screams of desperation and hurt: we can actually chose if nothing else, to refuse to doubt, and only feel the pain and walk through it without erasing the one anchor which will bring healing. It hurts to make it, but it is a choice.

7. Take it all before God, even if you are angry at Him. Someone once commented 'He can handle it'. " Pray without Ceasing"Do not leave off praying because of the hurt, but consciously turn toward God, even if in anger, and work it out. Tell God you do not understand. Tell Him you were not so strong that you could handle what happened. Spend time in His presence and if you have to grit your teeth, praise Him. The Holy Spirit is not called Comforter for nothing.

8. Refuse to receive what the world says about you or the event. You do not have to argue, nor rail back if they claim you deserved it or say all manner of cruelties. When I counseled mothers who had stillborns, many reported horrible things others said such as 'well 'it' would have been deformed' or 'you can have others' or 'aren't you glad it happened now' or 'you must not have taken care of yourself'. Likewise, a person may be in poverty because they were noble, or in jail because they saved lives or stood in the gap for another: one cannot be certain.

9. This is trite, but neither terror nor pain last forever. Sleep will at least for the moment dispel despair, and weariness and sleeplessness can aggravate decision making and hopefulness. Sleep and then decide.

10. Refuse to identify yourself as a victim. If you are arrested and imprisoned for your faith, hold your head high, and maintain your dignity. They will try to take it from you at all counts. If you are incarcerated in a mental hospital, for that is what it is, an incarceration, walk wisely and discreetly, and do not discuss spiritual things with natural minds unless the Lord prompts you to. They are viewing you as insane, so what you say is 'halo-effected' by that---you can talk about the Lord's soon return in Church, or about the parting of the Red Sea, but most of our poor psychologists and psychiatrists are not mature enough to receive it.
Remember that people all over the world are suffering the same outrage as you are, and that you are not alone.

11. Understand that God has not forsaken you: He is in the process of a great work, the fullness of which you may not see for years. A famous hymn says "When darkness seems to hide His face, I rest in His unchanging grace"... Keep praying and staying in the Word: feelings and faith must not be confused. Feeling God's nearness comes with obedience and faithfulness, but when the divine warfare becomes great enough that we cannot sense His presence, we cannot let go of faith, which spans those abysses.

12. Doubt is not losing faith. If you have doubts, and all believers have, even after seeing God's great power, take it before the Lord. Take it into the Word. Search it out. But don't give into it. The apostles saw the healings, loaves and fishes, walking on water and the raising of the dead, the Cross, and the Resurrection, but shortly after, turned back to go 'a-fishing'. Moses' followers saw the waters of the Red Sea part and all Israel saved, and then wondered if God could feed them in the desert. They doubted after some time passed that at Meribah God would provide water. Happens. The response is not to give up, but to lean further into faith.

13. In the middle of the very worst agony which is occurring far too frequently in this world now, refuse to make any decisions about your faith, even if it fails. Chin up, shoulders back. If some monster is going to hurt you, he is looking to devour your spirit also. Don't give it to him. Look in the distance and be somewhere else with the LORD. Recite scripture if you still can (pain can take away the ability for a season). Praise God when you least feel like it. Name the Name above all names. Speak the Words Jesus, Yshua gave "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, No man cometh unto the Father but by me, then " I withstand you" directed toward the real enemy of faith. Might be surprised what happens!

14. This is the hardest point, but for Christians, if you study out the way the early disciples preached, they gave the whole gospel as quick as possible in a nutshell even to brutal soldiers carrying them off to prison or beating them half to death. One missionary family in Korea some years back, was taken under arrest and buried alive, shovel full by shovel full, while they kept singing a hymn. Their little girl died first, then the mother, and lastly the pastor-father. The worst death imaginable, resulted in the coming to Messiah of one who held one of those deadly shovels, who went on to win thousands , the very heart's desire of the couple and their daughter.

Our bitterness comes when we keep looking at the horrors of life as something interfering with our wishes , wants and desires and happiness. I gave into bitterness more than once, even sometimes now, because life just seemed too difficult, too many unhappy, or aggressively confronting, or too much 'danger'. During the time of those high waters, though, I continued the work I was given to do. If it should be gone tomorrow, I will start all over again. Might kick and scream a little if I still can, but I will start over. I once saw that pearl of great price, the truth that could not be undone, and I have seen nothing like it. I have seen the Power of the Name above all Names. I will be returning in the next column no doubt to some phase of Shoah Education, or Ethics, or the church , but even that, though in a slightly more secular vein, is the product of refusing to give up. When the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt by the tribes, they were instructed to hold a sword in one hand, a stone in the other, and not to even change till it was done. Tobiah, Sanballat and Geshem fought the wall continually, with letters to the King slandering the work, demeaning, humiliation, then war, but block by block, the wall that remains today was rebuilt.

That is the tenacity required of real Christianity, not going along with Chuck Smith, or Irwin Lutzer, or John Hagee, David Jeremiah, or Chuck Swindoll or anyone else: though there may be good men among the powerful, the Christianity of the Bible prevails against "the way things are ". The real Christians of the World are suffering and the suffering and persecution is intense, awful and increasing. We cannot live complacently with the kind of belief that Jesus said he would 'spew out of His mouth'. We must take the stands for the Messiah He asked of us: love for God with a whole and real heart, and join the ranks of real Christians worldwide. First, we must learn real faith, and how to stand against the unthinkable. We will indeed meet at the Bema seat of Christ, where the questions will be all His.

A 17 Year Old "Twitter Bug" and a Poor Man's Version of the History of the Internet: Ruin isn't a Job Interview

This week a 17 year old was found to be the culprit in planting a worm (virus) on Twitter which wreaked havoc for their staff in causing over 10,000 bogus responses and redirects to a real 'viral' site. When questioned about the act, he remarked that he thought it might lead to a job in internet security. Now I would like to say this calmly, and more fluently than I will, but "Good Lord, Has this country lost its mind?"
And please don't think that is a 'minced oath' at the beginning, it is really a prayer.

Criminal Acts on the Net

I would like to express to that brilliant little boy, what his self advertising did, because I am having to put up with constant garbage like that as are many individuals, companies, news sources and others. To the 'child' who wants a reward for ruinous behavior let me say that the rest of us, mostly adults who are working on the net, don't want you on the net at all, much less working in internet security. You think it is fun and games? Twitter, just for the current example, runs a business, a corporation, and every extra task and/or downtime costs them money. Real money. The kind it takes to feed your family, like 17 year old boys who hack. It also causes strife and contention, rage, ruin to the site's reputation, though they had nothing to do with it, hours of work lost, and when enough of it happens people and businesses give up and abandon the net for being a viable education, social or business environment.

As with Twitter, constant 'play hacking' is not funny, and eventually interferes with free speech. We were all young once, and some of us, though our age and appearance betrays us, were also fairly rebellious and innovative when we were young: the youthful Gates, Job, and Wozniak did their fair share of intrusion into phone systems, and other lofty governmental organizations, but the difference is, well, except for Gates, it was momentary, and they used it to show security holes and not to ruin their targets, although frankly, even that creates an environment where nobody's work is sacred, and no one has safe boundaries anymore. I don't want anyone testing my sites or computers seeing if I have a security leak. The internet in part was born of rebellion then, but it is nothing but a filthy rag if it becomes a sort of 'Mad Max Thunderdome" arena where anything goes. Now the kid may be valuable after about 6 months to a year in county detention, and if some reader thinks that is merciless, a real short jolt now is better than years of ruin later.

How bad it Can Get

Let me explain how bad it can get on the internet. That is, if I can get through writing this without the screen 'disappearing' without hands, or blacking out, or browser switching etc. When we first began to work on the net in 1996 (before on green screen), most of what we encountered in the way of 'trouble' were glitches and learning: like everyone else we had to become proficient before beginning our then somewhat laughable sites. (All sites were somewhat laughable back then, and styles went in waves, but in the beginning everybody loved little goofy animations and walked away feeling like Stephen Spielberg). Quickly though, many began to learn the ropes and virtually thousands of hours per coder was put into the net, either coding, designing, producing graphics, researching, learning to write for the net, devising better navigation and searches, learning networking and advertising and the eons of other endeavors which preoccupied us. The net was mesmerizing and one could do the coolest graphics ever with light behind vivid colors and opacities, and all were enchanted. I could continue to teach in areas I wanted to even if I couldn't teach those courses on campus, so for me, it was a challenge and a way to publish what academics never gave me the opportunity to do, and it also provided for me as a Christian, networking, new ministry opportunities etc, and while I know there are more perverse interests than holy ones out there, all could have their say as it became the world's backyard fence.

Shortly though, the monster's teeth began to show, and true to its nativity, it began to be a little vicious: big businesses started to go under as the little demonized hacking contingents began to waylay pages, advertisements, shopping carts, etc, and soon pages like Pets.com went under, and software companies came and went.
There were feeding frenzies too, when the great big overbloated monopolized Pirate Whales ingested all the tiny little cyber plankton in their path. That is a process that has not stopped. The World Wide Web had a world wide market and it began to be a place of world wide trade and world wide scamming. And then with the advent and growth of interpersonal chatrooms and webs, it became a horrible net in which lewd men and pedophiles could enchant and entice young victims playing on the computer while their parents were at work, and I wish the Feds and the police would stand up and make known how many victims there were and how many have died or disappeared. For awhile, pornographic sites ran helter-skelter over the net, and until good filters, even the most prudish emails got a few ads which burned through the screen. The internet became a place for easy marks and wanton crime, and because so few police or other law enforcement agencies had any experience, reporting even the loss of thousands of dollars, and businesses/sites, led to little other than despair. Blue Security, an Israeli based company, one of the foremost leaders in developing net security, discovered desperately that even the best security systems can't withstand massive bombardment of angry thieves.

Then, though for a short while, there was a sort of doldrums, when everybody garnered their troops and weaponry, and Microsoft did in Apple, and then everybody else, the Woz quit years before, and eventually Gates in the entreprenuer of Centuries retired, determined not to leave his children more than 10 million each so they would value hard work and ingenuity like their dad. Now it is, well something else, and the Woz appears on dancing with the Stars, Bill Gates wanders to and fro around the world checking on stuff, Steve Jobs is dying robbed of his place but true to the end, and the stage is set for the years to follow.

Businesses came back for awhile with increased securities, certificates, and the best IT people money could buy, because it really is a grand market. Old hippies who swore they would never allow Richard Nixon to continue Watergate practices and the Viet Nam war are now doing business with Red China and turning over info on dissidents. Bloggers sit in jail all over the world and we all blog out our personal commentaries on the way life is. Amnesty Int'l and Voice of the Martyrs send notices of people being beaten, jailed , tortured and killed for the great crime of writing down on the net 'the way they see the world'. There are alot of people who only want us to see the world one way: theirs. Governments are not the only censors, but now special interest groups, including some legalistic Christian groups, big money christian groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islamics, Revisionists, and spammers. It is getting a little ugly out there.

Free Guys are Gone

The Free guys are gone: not the freedom fighters, there are a few left, but the guys who all shared the philosophy that the net must remain free and open, and the great souls who poured thousands of hours into free software and its availabiiity. Many lost heart when Kim died. RegMechanic the great little registry clinic now costs, as do versions of Adware, and even Open Office the great blue fist raised in agony against MS apps is going to fees for quality. Please don't take HTML Kit from us. Bearshare has lost thousands of mp3 offerings as other sharing programs have due to copyright violations and Youtube may offer twenty amateurs singing 'Folsom Prison blues' but may or may not carry Johnny Cash. Movie downloads are done in cyber-Istanbul to avoid 15 year olds being incarcerated and fined 50,000 for downloading a copy of "Fast and Furious". The web is getting expensive partly from greed and partly because security takes as much or more time than coding and site maintenance.

When the Web Becomes a Nightmare

I used to think I might like to run a hosting company for extra income, learn how to maintain the servers, etc, but I would venture into firing ranges in Afghanistan before wandering there. Lawsuits, IP Piracy, undercurrents of shared IPs, Fly by night companies with classy ads wandering off with everyone's sites, breakins, breakdowns: you folks can have it. They also have to put up with nightmares like myself who insist on 'servers-in-the-sunshine', so to speak. In my own defense, though, having fought as one of the few remaining embattled individuals with a growing and successful set of webs, I will let you in on the cost, and why 17 year old Twitter bugs and local teenagers, housewives, and all the rest are so infuriating: because my life and my son and daughter's lives have been ripped to shreds by what has happened with regard to being somewhat successful on the web. Only somewhat.

In the past few years, while my hosting companies winced at my copious tech messages, those messages showed both of us were experiencing web problems and both were the genuine owner and host. We have had illegal break ins, missing backup disks, browser switching, IP switching, deleted files, 80 gigs of my files dumped into some mysterious cyber bin which never reappeared, 3 fried drives, 2 ruined motherboards, sound and video card switches, registration problems, extra illegal hops on tracer routes, in addition to life interferences by those who wanted to pretend to have a part of the work. A virus ruined 14% of our files in 2003, and our firewall reports look like the Standard Editions of Sigmund Freud. I have gone through trials of every firewall, and today, after reformatting my one year old drive for the third time and rerunning XP after abandoning Vista, after constant problems with software and downloads, not just from tech problems, I can't scroll with out difficulties and an occasional beep, and can't be sure my screen hasn't been seditioned.

Last week I lost 4 days to nonstop local problems, and a couple days ago found shoaheducation.com my main site pinging at the wrong place, then at two other IPs, and may have to change hosting again. What's at stake? Someone else would like to claim authorship and ownership of all I have written on the web, which now amounts to thousands of pages, researched, written, coded, SEOed and marketed, and walk away with the whole shebang just to show me 'what the real world is like.' They have been willing even to resort to violent affronts, and my other employment has dwindled to the point of unbelievability. I can't not fight for my right to my own work and say, because my integrity and the integrity of the material depend on it, and as many of us in our 50s on the web have found, we are too specialized for alot else, and without your integrity of work and reputation, it means career and life ruin. I did the right thing, in some regards, because the influence and result was worthwhile: many are educated and standing up, and I am glad. If I had to do it all again though, I would have said to my daughter, who said "No, mom, HTML is easy, look I'll show you how to bold and underline!, I would have said, "I can't---I have to go feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the poor, or learn to garden.I'm not a quitter, little 17 year old boy who hacked Twitter and thinks its cool to destroy work and lives and worst of all spirits. If they put you on trial, though and send you to detention, please don't think it was a job interview.

Why Does the World Hate Jesus?

Video: Kev0612

This week, I sat down in the evening to watch tv for a bit, and my son ( I will blame it on him) turned to the Colbert Report. As I have seen Colbert do in the past, he was mocking Jesus and Moses, and he particularly seems to like to ridicule Jesus, belief in Jesus, and the Word of God. He's a very funny, albeit caustic man, but as a believer in the Redeemer, I can not listen to it: it enrages me, and the station was turned. This week, though, when the world celebrates Passover and Easter, and on this day, Good Friday, I have to ask exactly WHY the world hates, mocks and ridicules Jesus Christ, or in Hebrew, Yeshua Ha Meschiach.

Who Jesus Was, and What He was Like

For years, before beginning, I must admit, I did the same, before I became a believer. I mocked everything to do with religion, and Jesus, and churchgoers, with disdain and curt remarks, and I remember having a good laugh when a student put me on her 'prayer list' at the back of a class journal in Personal Growth. So did some others she had listed there. Jesus and prayer, God and Heaven were no longer very real to me at all, for I had fallen prey to the 'universified pride' which so besets almost everyone on college campuses today, including ascribing all religious thought and experience, as did William James, to some sort of 'altered state of consciousness' or archetype 'shared by all cultures'.

When I was young, I had a picture of "The Good Shepherd", a wall tapestry, hanging on my wall, a tender though catholicized rendition of Jesus holding a lamb and a shepherd's crook, tending his flock. My mother dutifully took us to church every Sunday, we attended to every ritual, but I knew very little of God or the Messiah, His Son, though even then I got the impression he was well, good. Someone you could pray to and ask for things you didn't have, but like many children, my understanding was very limited. In the arrogance of my teen and college years, I stopped believing altogether, and though we were not allowed to stay home on Sunday till 16, fell prey to what we considered at the time a more 'sophisticated' view of life, so all in all, Darwin and Descartes had done their work, as had the NEA.

I remember though in college when my husband came home from a class, on religion and myths of the world, that he commented on the Professor noting that he was a Christian. I was fascinated that a man who taught Comparative Religions would believe in Jesus, and asked him to ask the Prof why. The response was less than satisfactory, he said, 'because it makes the most sense'. I did not ask many more questions after that. Most of the 'christians' I ran into back then wanted to know if I was 'saved' and where I went to church, and give me the 'Four Spiritual Laws' from Campus Crusade. They never told me though about Jesus and why they believed in Him.

Now, after 24 years of being a believer, and that long daily in the Word, I have a much better idea of who Jesus is, the journey of which started when Jesus asked Peter

Whom Say Ye That I Am?

And Peter rightly replied, the Son of God, or Son of the Blessed. He was not about terrorizing people with rules and laws, but about healing and love, teaching them as the first of those 'rules and laws' or commandments. He was neither the schwarzenegger like tradesman that the Baptists portray going around telling people off, nor the wispy ivory soap boy floating on air that liberalism portrays, but the incarnation of real, genuine love, the Love of God, and His very real power which cannot be ignored then or now.

He was kind to children, and considered them every bit as important as the adults who stood by, once even telling his disciples to 'back off' and suffer the little children to come unto him. He was about Life, caring to the death for one goal: Life forever, in peace and joy for all. He was able to foretell the future, and He 'knew what was in a man'. He was wise, and would commit himself to no man. Exhausted and weary in the human body He chose to bear, he prayed, healed and taught the children of Israel till their was nothing left of human strength. He was Sovereign over the elements which were His: Galilee waves braced his footsteps, and
figs dried up at his touch on command, and mere bread for a meal was no match for the Bread from Heaven.

He defended the weak and powerless, and the only people he was enraged at were the false religious leaders of the day, who used God's Word as the product of merchandise they made it, till in defense of the poor, the weak, the widow and infirm, he marched into the Temple to take it back from those who were not appointed by God but by man, who had purchased their positions from Rome. He knew they were robbing widows blind while making pretenses of long prayers. Hmm.

He could see things as they really are: his trumpeting was of the Woman who gave all that she had, pennies into the Temple offering, or of the woman of 'ill repute' (Vatican legend calls her a prostitute, not the Bible), who poured out the only precious thing she had in life, a perfumed oil, for His anointing to the only ministry which will be trumpeted in heaven.

He was zealous for independence from Rome, but even more from sin and the oppression of false religion: He announced his ministry in the Synagogue, reading Isaiah 61. He laid aside all earthly possessions to bring about the love and Salvation of God even if it meant brutal beatings and ripping flesh, and dying on a 'shameful' Cross meant by Rome for rebel slaves. He was slave to all and Master of All. The Branch, and High Priest, the King from a Kingdom Pilate could not name, and near the end of His ministry, he even raised the dead, sitting down to eat with the recovering fellow a week later.

The Way Leaders Saw Him

The way the leaders of the day saw him then was not unlike now. At first they merely ridiculed him. Romans were not too worried about him unti his strength and followers grew, and then they saw Him as a threat to the authority of Rome, and the charges in the end, which did not prosper, though His death did for a moment, were Sedition. Pilate's main concern was whether He was a King. Pilate himself could not deny it, fixated on this powerful man.

When He healed the blind man, the sure sign of Messiah, the Religious 'mob' of the day laughed and noted that nothing good and no prophet ever came out of 'Galilee', even though they did not know the Word well enough to know that several had including Elijah and Jonah. When that set of good ole boys saw Lazarus alive again after Jesus called him back from 4 days in the grave, their first impulse was to kill Lazarus again so that Jesus would not get 'credit'. While it is never spoken of in the Bible, I suspect that the day after the Sermon on the Mount, it was probably preached under every name on the Sanhedrin. When they saw His following of the poor, the lame, the blind, deaf and dumb, and even a couple of Priests from the Sanhedrin in the shadows come to Him to learn and receive the kind of Life that lasts forever, their impulse was to put Him to death, for as they said it, "better that one man die for the good of the nation". Death and money were always their solution to a problem and in the end, they themselves declared , in order to get thier way that "they had no king, but caesar". Hardly a Jewish position. Hardly in a time when 70 young zealots gave their lives, burned to death for the great crime of tearing an eagle insignia off the Temple walls.

Rather than not love us, even for a moment, rather than not complete the thing God had given Him to do, which only He could do, rather than see us die never knowing the Love of God, or risk being separated from that love forever, rather than leaving us no way out of the infection of sin on this earth which has been both ours and the earth's demise, He willingly surrendered His life, body, wellbeing, and future to become the Sacrifice of Centuries, the Blood atonement, which would renounce any claim the enemy of all souls had on us. Unbelief no doubt creeps in, because we cannot see the divine war, but as C.S. Lewis once remarked, " I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. "C. S. Lewis

Why The World hates Jesus

The World hates Jesus, first and foremost, because they do not know Him, and because He challenges, even His very being, every assumption we have about the world and life. Comedians see Him as fodder for jokes: a buffoon who is not real, who in their eyes could not have walked on water because it is not within their understanding of things beyond the mundane. Their cruelty though, I could never understand, it comes with a sharp edge of hatred. Of the world leaders of religions, none is made fun of so much as Jesus. This makes little sense that the Prince of Peace would be so disdained, while Ghandi only rarely is poked at, even though in his youth he beat his wife, and almost started a war with muslims, or Buddha, who sat under a tree till worms encased his skull, or Mohammed, who led one bloody takeover after another. I suspect it is more often the case that they consider Jesus one and the same with the meddling, legalistic finger pointers, churchgoers who are often without Christ, who tell everybody off and point to their faults. In Christ is no condemnation.

The Jews hate Christ, well, no the Jews have the most remarkable love -hate relationship of centuries. He's too Jewish and too good to hate full out: but so much barbaric cruelty and killings have been done in His name by those who claimed Him, but could not have been his, that they leave Him both in disdain and as an unfinished question. He was referred to for centuries as 'that man'. He scares some of the Tolerance folks to death because He declared He was the "Way, the Truth and the Life and no man comes to the Father but by me". They walk around all day when they hear that bumfuzzled. They've invented another kind of love, a 'philia' love in which all men are brothers, but most know that "never was it true this side of Jordan'.

Academics hate Him because He requires faith as the substance of things not seen, and they want operational definitions, observations and predictions and 'known quantities. They have intellect and research, human reason which produces changing theories every five years, but no concept of faith, or willingness to entertain that the world could not possibly in its complex tapestry been produced by anything such as a Creator. The world made from 'nothing' by 'accident' is a far greater leap of faith, that believing in a Creator, whose evidence is ever apparent and declared. They do not understand how Blaise Pascal, and Farenheit, Da Vinci or Newton could have believed in Jesus, the Lord and Savior, in all their brilliance because they deal in a different economy of belief.

Theologians and complacent churchgoers also seem to hate him, because He does not fit their models and attributes. Liberal Theologians want him to be a do-gooder, social protester, a Martyr for the cause of good works, and He will not let them stay at that. Conservatives and religionists hate HIm because they do not want a God who is flesh and blood and comes down off the walls of their churches, to require an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who requires their real and not just religious lives.

Politicians do not want the real Messiah: He still has power and so do His believers, and it does not fit with any networking or finagling they can attend to: they can't beat Him out of his position. Psychologists hate Him because to them He is a figment of imagination, a coping mechanism, an affront to their 'scientism'. Physicians are afraid they might not be needed if He is real and still heals. Kings and Potentates, Heads and Secretaries of State, are threatened by a power still so very real, as promised that just doesn't fit into the 21st century.

Carnal people despise Him because they fear the loss of their destructive lifestyles, which they are not really happy in, but its all they know, and loss is too threatening for change. The list of sins in the Old and New Testament eventually meet us with one of our own, so sinners, escape him for as long as they can fearing change, or run to Him as fast as they can, yearning for healing and peace.

Big Corporations hate his guts because He starts worldwide movements which threaten their overthrow, although that is their balliwick indeed. Mainline religions cannot take the idea that the head of the Church is Him and not the State because even Evangelicals just want to fit in.

And so hatred it is, not just reluctance. We still mock him on our airways and internet videos. Jokes abound, hardening hearts and separating from the one holy one in the World who was willing to give us all we would ever need, the one who even comedians and Web potentates run to in secret, in the dark, when their whole lives are gone by the world they trusted in. We all take a last breath, one escapes in a rattle at the end from our lungs, but for many, the one called Comforter, Healer, Almighty God, Prince of Peace and Everlasting Father is never known or called up.

The World Hates Jesus because they cannot see Him, and they are blind to the only Love that was ever real. No joking.

MARCH 28th---
LIGHTS OUT!!!

EARTH HOUR-MARCH 28,2009: LIGHTS OUT!!!

On March 28, 2009, all over the world, people for one hour will be turning their lights out. Seriously. And you should also.

Now for most people, the reason behind the worldwide effort, is to promote 'Earth Hour' like 'Earth Day' and raise awareness of Global Warming and other planetary interests. Even Google turns black that day becoming the 'other' black site on the net. It started in Australia when just one city had a 'lights out' hour a few years ago, and has now spread into a grassroots, worldwide movement.

Typically on Sedition Act we deal with ethical and holocaust related topics, so one may think we have strayed in this venture, but nothing could be farther from the truth. On March 28th, I will indeed turn off my lights during that hour, and my computer, and my television, and every other electrical appliance I can find, at least for the afternoon. I will do it for the following reasons, leaving the global warming issue to everyone else:

1. Turning off the electric worldwide shows that all of us unessential, unimportant peasantry, en Mass can bring down giants.
2. Turning off the lights shows visibly how many of us are out their, who want a safe and peaceful planet, not given to the ravages of amoral corporations.
3. Turning off the lights worldwide sends a little message to the kind sir folks at the Oil Companies, that the Giant you have become is no Goliath next to our small smooth stone of putting a finger to a switch in our own household.
4. Turning off the Lights will save an enormous amount of money and energy and fuel, even for one hour.
5. Turning off the lights teaches our children that we as the lesser important citizens of the nations of the world have a voice and are not without power.
6. Turning off the lights sets a worldwide net work of standing up to the unconscionable acts of the violence against our earth and its inhabitants.
7. Turning off the lights shows how many of us there are who do not want it the way it is going.

Hitler , Darre and Environmentalism

Not to neglect WWII and the Shoah, it should be mentioned that the only positive thing (partial though it was) that came out of the Third Reich, was a move to environmentalism, through a man named Darre who because of the push to incorporate the principles of 'Blood and Soil' (blut und boden), sought ways to preserve, enhance, and purify the land and environment of Germany. However, Darre eventually resigned when there became a divide between the sinister agenda of Hitler's government and his own aims.

As the years grew though, most of the people who headed the Environmental and 'World' days were secularists, sometimes New Agers, and occasionally scientists, until we all began to wake up and realize, through talk of depleting resources and peak Oil, global warming and the like that we cannot ignore a planet in entropy. Our children have to live in the muck we leave behind. In the early days there were books like 'The Hundredth Monkey" and the Population Bomb , and then Earth Days in schools, but most were coordinated by more radical elements, and the concern for the environment was there, but not forefront. Through the years though we have seen mass efforts of 'acceptability' and now we have the Green Channel, Planet Green, Green movements, Green products, state and city sponsored recycling, cleanups, etc and the American public is quite acclimated to the whole idea of 'going green'.

Christians and Environmentalism

When I first became a Christian, I found in the more fundamental circles I traveled in that 'Christianity' was identified almost entirely with conservative politics, and at the time, through the Reagan administration with the likes of Butz, there was an almost anti-environmental viewpoint. Corporations were allowed basically to do whatever they could get away with. There was a constant dialogue of extremes between people who would support free range chickens over human life, to the heartless Corporate ultra conservatives who considered the environment a mere means to an end. Most have come to more integrated positions since then.

Christians, however, generally stayed out of the eminent discussions regarding the preservation of the environment for years. A few who called themselves 'Christian Environmentalists' might sponsor church clean-up days, or community projects, but little was focused on doctrinally. I always found that terribly odd of believers who from the Garden through Adam were instructed to name and tend the Garden and later to tend the ground and grow food and have dominion over creation, to have somehow lost that very important issue over centuries. When you live in a house, you dust and polish furniture, you vacuum and scrub, disinfect, and organize, not just from pride but because you have a concept of dignity, health, and 'caretaking' for what you have been given. Why that idea did not extend to the environment escapes me, but we have been given a very reasonable habitation called earth, which if cared for will last to the end, but instead we relegate the issue to oblivion.

Fundamental Christians often delegate the reason for non-intervention to the fact that so many environmental groups have a 'New Age' or secular attitude, and some are even occultic. For that reason , stressing 'separation' (in the world but not of the world) they vied away from concern for Environmental issues and movements, separating glass from plastic, from cardboard for recycling but little else.

The separation issue is paramount for the Christian: we are not to have blind ecumenism with others who do not believe in the "Way, the truth and the Life", those who believe that all ways are o.k., reasoning that God doesn't really care. The Word of God teaches quite differently through the Old and New Testament, that we are 'sanctified' meaning 'set apart' for the purposes of God, and that we are not to taint the truth of the Word of God with untruths, or unholy and unhealthy alliances. Some though take this to mean that we should abandon issues such as caring for the environment, but the opposite is really true. We were from Eden to care for every aspect of earthly life, caring for it as a gift from God.

For that reason, even though I am more a strict separationist than anyone would guess, I believe that unlike other efforts, March 28th EARTH HOUR should be endorsed and participated in by even conservative Christians who adhere as I do to the Word as final and perfect authority. I do not endorse all of the tenets of every person who founded or promotes earth day, nor do I claim it as a christian endeavor or an ecumenical one. I do believe though that the massive participation of common citizens, including Christians, will 'tell some bad guys off' , so to speak, about how many of us wish to keep the earth as our Messiah would have us keep it, and while we cannot and should not join hands on many things, we should take our stand to show that we have the power and strength to stand against the insurmountable.

Auschwitz & Oil

I will be turning my LIGHTS OUT for another reason: in honors of millions of human beings who died enslaved in the concentration camps, particularly the Auschwitz-Monowitz, Birkenau, Furstengrube complex, who were criminally enslaved by Oil and other companies not just from Germany but from the US. Exxon , formerly Standard Oil (note the 'double cross'), DuPont and other companies owned massive interests in a company called DeGussa, a subsidiary of I.G. Farben, a chemical company which manufactured Zyklon B, and which enslaved thousands in the production of it and other chemical products. Now the the largest corporation of all time, it still has blood on its hands, and I believe will continue to have more. They are generally thought to be unbeatable at anything.

Yet war after war is now fought with facades regarding terrorism and justice when the truth is, they are being fought for the control of Oil, and that is not really unknown, just unspoken. We use geometrically more oil than any other country, more than double Britain, and ten times China per capita. I say, we have no right just for the privilege of luxury and comfort while the rest of the world is forced to conserve. Much of what we have is not obtained fairly or even legally, but at the expense of others. We decry Hitler and the Nazis for the wasting of the Ukraine for the sake of feeding Germany, while we do the same thing here. I will be turning off my lights and electricity, not just on EARTH HOUR, but every chance I get, if nothing else to say, "because WE CAN (apologies to Chabad). I will be saying, "I can fight you and your companies no other way, I have neither money nor power that would affect one aspect of your sinister business alone, but with millions, we can instruct YOU how our planet will function and operate and not have you tell us, what we must bow down to. I will be turning my lights off to say "I do not approve, as a Christian of the rape of oil-rich companies, even if they are not Christian, just so we can live in luxuries others cannot afford." I will be saying, "I know how powerful and dangerous you are, and how little you appreciate perspectives such as mine, but we live and die alike, and with the small insignificant people of this world, we will tell YOU that our world will survive and be livable, rather that entertain your demonic attitude of 'waste everything you can, glut everything you can, use anyone you can and dispose of them-its ruined anyway."

I will be saying, though you will not understand and will mark me as naive, "I will with what little ability I have, work to protect the very fine world God created and gave me, and others, and which you are destroying." Others may have their global warming issues, but when I turn off the Lights on March 28th, it will be in honor of the LIGHT OF THE WORLD, whose light is not dimmed.

ALL LIGHTS OFF MARCH 28th. IT MATTERS.

No Thanks....to Darwin: The Ideology We Could Have Lived Without

The Survival of the Most Brutal

Archimedes once said that if he were given a stick, a fulcrum and a place to stand, he could move the world. Move the World. His experiment was only stopped by a lack of travel beyond the stratosphere, obtaining the place to stand, and a stick long enough, or we could have been done with the whole thing long before a baby named Charles Darwin was born in 1809. Two hundred years ago, though, in the shadow of the Great Enlightenment, and Cartesian thought, a small child was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire England, to a Unitarian family back when even Unitarians went to church.His name was Charles Darwin. Before he died on April 19,1892, at 83, he radically changed the world, but not for the good. Not at all.

Before beginning my argument of 'why' it was not for the good, a guess is ventured that any loyal Evolutionist or Darwinist will no doubt lambaste how ignorant I could possibly be not to see the preeminence of Darwin and his theories. yet one thing with which we might all agree is that his influence was utterly pervasive. The theories of this one man would touch business and the industrial revolution, natural sciences, psychology and sociology, religion and theology, Eugenics and Human Engineering, Social order , politics, Education and child-rearing, would revolutionize philosophy, and provide the political philosophy for Adolf Hitler's Brave New World, as well as our own. That is the degree of profundity which characterized Darwin's concepts however... they were ONLY concepts

Theories, Hypotheses and Facts

It has been approximately 28 years since leaving graduate school, yet every year I was there, one professor or another expounded on the difference between Theories, Hypotheses and Facts. Sometimes it was in the Philosophy of Science, or Contemporary Systems in Psychology or even in Research Methods, but it was so pronounced a lesson almost any psychologist or scientist can recite it , a sort of 'catechism' entry in our field.

A Hypothesis is essentially a guess or prediction, about the possible meaning and direction of a set of observed events.
B. A Theory is a well and widely tested hypothesis, in which observations and studies have been conducted validating a hypothesis or set of hypotheses, and
C. A fact is an openly observable established observation, so readily agreed upon by all that it is essentially established for all time.

There's a little variation in that, but that pretty much it: Darwin's ideas are often called Darwin's THEORY but he really was casting forth 'hypotheses', which were not yet thoroughly proven, and were certainly not fact, as the statement at the beginning of this blog notes:


Darwinian Theories and 'Social Darwinism'.

Much of the social change and scientific changes related to the social, such as 'Racial Science' or 'Eugenics' which were birthed by Darwin's ideas are subsumed under the rubric now referred to as "Social Darwinism". Among the basic tenets of traditional 'Darwinism' which are then applied to Social variables were:

1. A Universe whose origin and reason or lack of reason could exist apart from God

2. Species adaptation such that physical and other traits would be 'selected'out for
Survival of the species [Natural Selection] or 'Survival of the fittest'.

3. The Generation of 'kinds' from 'kind'- that instead of the divine creation of 'kinds' which differed from the Garden of Eden, that a biochemical process caused life and then all life emanated by mutation and adaptation.

4. "Spontaneous Generation" of the origin of the Universe: theories such as 'Big Bang' emanated from his theories.

While the buzzword 'Evolution' is what Darwin is most equated with, he is responsible for far more than that idea, and his ponderings of what man is or might be have effected literally the entirity of Western academic and political thinking . Even though approximately 170 years later a 'transitional type' has never been found (which would have to exist for his theories to be true), they nevertheless, as his quote indicates, took wing and became 'established fact' without confirmation.


This consideration of Darwinian Evolutionary thinking is no dialogue between blind belief in a myth of Creation vs. Science: those philosophical differences are portrayed by academic snobbery as that dialectic: their unquestioned belief in 'Science' as the means and way to truth is not a Philosophy of Science, but a blind 'Scientism' in which the idea of man-made methodologies and procedures, like incantations and 'conjuring' lead to