Circus of Recycling – Part III

The last Part from the Circus of Recycling – Part II and I.
(line break)

* * * * * * * * * *

CIA Memo 655104p1

R.H. Hillenkoetter, “Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense: Subject: Clandestine Air Transport Operations” CIA, May 28, 1948.

Full CIA Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

* * * * * * * * * *

In the art of modern intelligence and counter-intelligence, implementing multiple cloaks are quite useful. Creations of illusion are not magical, or mystical, but they are hints of planned suggestion and a keen understanding of human nature. One of the most historic and prolific examples of intel and counter-intel, or disinformation, was Operation Bodyguard used by the Allies in WWII to hide and deceive the German High Command of the time and place of the 1944 D-Day Normandy invasion. For the removal of Palestinians from the U.N. partitioned land, villages, and homes for Zionist Israel occupation, in comparison there was little difference.

As already examined in the previous Part II, the amount of U.S. funding mobilized for the creation, resettlement, and defense of the new state of Israel was well-organized and well cloaked. Between 1939 and May 1948 the Jewish Agency for Israel raised $3.5 trillion in today’s dollars (New York Times, August 10, 1961). And this agency is simply one Zionist organization out of many more. With the money raised the arms smuggling by The Sonneborn Group – Institute to the Haganah in Palestine followed (see CIA Memorandum above). There was still one major issue, or cloak to be devised. With the Nazis destroyed, the majority of surviving Jews throughout Europe wanted to remain and rebuild their lives. Rabbi Klaussner, a Zionist in charge of displaced persons in post-WWII Europe, reported the difficulty to the Jewish American Conference May 2, 1948…

“I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine… We must, instead of providing ‘displaced persons’ with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them.”
What Price Israel?, Alfred H. Lilienthal, Infinity Publishing; Anniversary edition (March 1, 2004)

Hence, the underground campaign of “Chomer ‘Enoshi Tov” began.
(line break)

European Refugee Camps Create Palestinian Refugee Camps
(line break)

If you are curious by what is meant by the Hebrew “Chomer ‘Enoshi Tov“, then the perfect expert to ask is Noam Chomsky. In a 2014 interview he used the term while discussing the Jewish Holocaust:

“Well the translation of the title [ed. Chomer Enoshi Tov] would be something like “Good Human Material.” What [Yosef Grodzinsky] means is that the Zionist emissaries had a doctrine that able-bodied men and women between 18 and 35 had to be compelled to go to Palestine where they would be cannon-fodder for the coming conflict. Now the others they didn’t care much about and even undermined efforts to save children and so on. Well, all of this was going on in the immediate wake of the holocaust involving the survivors. No concern about them. You look through the 1950s, there’s virtually no discussion of the holocaust.”

Exodus_1947_after_British_takeover

British containment of the SS Exodus, 1947

“Good Human” cannon-fodder for the conquest of Palestine and the independence and defense of Israel. Ben-Gurion, Rabbi Klaussner, and many other Zionist envoys would use this phrase repeatedly regarding the repopulation of Palestine.

From 1934 as part of the long maritime trail of Jewish refugees escaping Nazi Germany to Palestine, the S.S. Exodus in July 1947 had carried the most passengers, 4,515 Jewish refugees, until the Atzmaut in January 1948. And as Noam Chomsky correctly explains above, in popular American media and literature from 1947 to 1958, no one was interested in the Holocaust until the 1960’s when the fate of world perception and acceptance of Israel hung in the balance. When the film Exodus had hit American theaters in 1960, the general perception began to significantly change. Although Leon Uris’s 1958 bestseller inspired the film, the actual events were far less extraordinary than the book and film both glamorized.

The late Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor of sociology, Baruch Kimmerling, corrects and expounds the misguided literary and cinematic portrayals:

“When the [SS Exodus] embarked, the UN Special Committee on Palestine was holding discussions and Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, the primary governing body of the state-in-formation, felt that the plight of Jewish refugees in Europe needed to be dramatized in order to attract more sympathy for the Jewish struggle over Palestine. The British authorities had refused to let the immigrants disembark in Palestine, or even to take refuge in transitional camps in Cyprus, forcing the boat to be redirected back to Germany. To prevent such a ghastly outcome, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann persuaded the French Prime Minister, Leon Blum, to host the refugees. Ben-Gurion rejected this solution out of hand, and the poor survivors remained on board for seven months.
Israel’s Culture of Martydom, by Baruch Kimmerling, The Nation, Dec. 22, 2004. http://www.thenation.com/article/israels-culture-martyrdom/

And further, more accurate events are just as astonishing…

“Ben-Gurion’s insensitivity was rooted in his “Palestine-centric” attitude, best exemplified by his 1938 remark that “if I knew it was possible to save all children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, because we are faced not only with the accounting of these children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish people.” This was not merely a rhetorical declaration. Grodzinsky tells us with great pain how Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders vetoed the immigration of 1,000 orphans, who were in physical and emotional danger as a result of the harsh winter of 1945, from the camps in Germany to England, where the Jewish community had managed to secure them permits. Another group of roughly 500 children of camp inhabitants was barred, after Zionist intervention, from reaching France, whose rabbinical institutions had offered them safe haven.”
Ibid.

To add further insult to the plight of Jewish-European Holocaust refugees, few American and Western European newspaper and radio consumers were informed at the time that many of the Exodus passengers had applied for immigration visas to the United States (denied by Zionists) and/or many more were simply wanting to settle in more peaceful countries — a state of affairs Palestine certainly could not claim. Israel was anything but peaceful.

In the end, however, Ben-Gurion’s and Zionism’s propaganda scheme succeeded despite Jewish-European refugees being sick of war, fighting, and concentration-refugee camps and hundreds to thousands had become anti-Zionists!

The Giyus and The Sieff Group

As mentioned before, the ingathering of Jews into Palestine was not going to Zionist expectations; not enough Jewish-European DP’s were flocking voluntarily in rapid waves to the new Israel state. The slow low numbers would not survive the continued Arab conflicts. What was needed to abate Jewish war-fears was a growing army, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), to wage the conflicts. Because Americans and European Jews would never agree to or publicly side with another militaristic conflict, Zionist came up with an alternative target:  the most desperate of Jewish DP’s. In 1947 these men and their families were still residents of WWII refugee camps throughout Europe. Immediately the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee implemented a $25-million IDF recruitment campaign. On this campaign David Ben-Gurion and Chief of Staff Israel Galili reported…

“The manpower shortage for the fighting army forced modifications in the illegal immigration plan.

…New operational orders were issued: No more boats to bring homeless refugees to a safe haven. From the moment Ben-Gurion’s new orders were sent to the Mossad people in France through Shadmi, the decisions of the February 29th convention in Paris (with Ha’apaláh, B’richáh, and Haganáh delegates) were getting into effect. Haganáh and Mossad took upon themselves the task of moving fifteen thousand Jews of draft age and capability from Europe to Palestine by May 15th. Quotas were imposed on organizers in the various countries, aimed at carrying out the plan to bring in five thousand in March and April, and another ten thousand in May. Mossad people actually received stricter orders: From this moment on, no immigrants who lacked military capability were to be brought to Palestine. “We need only persons who fit the Haganáh,” wrote Ben-Gurion and Galili to commanders of Mossad in Europe.”
In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II, by Yosef Grodzinsky, Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2004, pp. 187-188.

But this campaign failed, badly.

“Upon being called to fulfill “their duty” and join the IDF… most Jewish DPs were reluctant. A failed voluntary draft drive (to which less than 0.3 percent of the DP population volunteered) led to compulsory conscription.”
Ibid, p. 226.

Mossad-Haganah fighters-1947

Mossad-Haganah fighters, 1947 – Wikipedia

This conscription was called Giyus, and any draft evaders were treated very harshly. Giyus-evaders were blacklisted, fired from jobs, given heavy fines, evicted from their living quarters, food rations cut, and yes, even beaten (Ibid, p. 199). This is quite extraordinary when these “draftees” had never even lived in Palestine, much less became combat soldiers for a foreign nation which did not exist in 1947 and early 1948!

With perpetual Arab-Zionist conflict in Palestine greatly hindering war-efforts, on July 27, 1943, Great Britain and the U.S. State Department came very close to issuing a “reverse Balfour” resolution if the covert Zionist activities didn’t cease. When a Zionist group — which included the aforementioned David Niles (White House official under Roosevelt and Truman), and David Lilienthal (chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority), Ben Cohen (White House staff), Robert R. Nathan (economist in Dept. of Commerce), and Harvard graduate David Ginsberg (assistant from the Securities and Exchange Commission during Roosevelt’s New Deal plan) all known as The Sieff Group — got wind of the Balfour reversal…

…they took immediate action with further coalition help from Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Bernard Baruch and others, and effectively killed the reversal.
Israel in the Mind of America, by Peter Grose, New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday, 1st ed., 1983, p. 177, 178-182.

(line break)
The 1949 Palestinian-Arab Refugee Crisis

James G. McDonald was the U.S. envoy to Palestine regarding the Zionist-Arab conflict and the growing displacement of Arab families. Authors Ilan Pappe and Rosemarie Esber describe it as Israel’s ethnic expulsion and cleansing of Palestine. But McDonald reported the crisis in 1948 to President Truman this way:

“The Arab refugee tragedy is rapidly reaching catastrophic proportions and should be treated as a disaster… Of approximately 400,000 refugees approaching winter, with cold heavy rains will, it is estimated, kill more than 100,000 old men, women and children who are shelterless and have little to no food.”
Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, by Donald Neff, Reprint Ed. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2002, p. 68.

From 400,000 refugees in 1948 the numbers jumped to approximately 750,000 in 1949. Many of them fled to neighboring Arab countries. U.S. foreign diplomats in Cairo, Egypt and Amman, Jordan reported that their two countries were so overcrowded with starving weak Palestinian families, their already inundated almost non-existent resources were pushed to near collapse.

Remarkably those Arab states continued to donate some $11-million to refugee aids. The U.S. Department of State tracked these activities from April to December 1948 stating:

“This sum, in light of the very slender budgets of most of these governments, is relatively enormous.

…the total direct relief offered.. by the Israeli government to date consists of 500 cases of oranges. Meanwhile, Israel had acquired formerly Palestinian-owned properties worth at least $480 million.”
Ibid, pp. 69, 72.

Palestinian refugees_Amman_1949

Palestinian refugees in Amman, 1949

President Truman naively believed the Zionist-lead Israeli state could coexist in Palestine with Arabs as a single state of shared power. But Truman’s 1948 Presidential election had also been bought for him by American Zionist leaders and their organization’s funding and was under heavy pressure to immediately recognize the nation of Israel to the world DESPITE equally heavy opposition by the State Department. Truman tried to persuade Israel to allow Arab refugees to return to their original homes under this coexisting belief and had Mark Ethridge negotiate it. After being continually refused by Israel, Ethridge very disgusted reported to the State Department “What I can see is an abortion of justice and humanity to which I do not want to be midwife…” (Ibid p. 75).

Finally the State Department had one last card to play:  the $49-million of unallocated funds from an Export-Import Bank loan to Israel. They threatened to stop it unless Israel allowed at least 200,000 Arab refugees to return to Palestine. When the U.S. coordinator on Palestine Refugee Matters delivered the threat to an angry Israeli ambassador, he returned to his office and in less than an hour received a notification from the White House that Truman was dissociating himself from any withholding of the Ex-Im Bank loan.
(line break)

U.S. Popular Media Post-1953 to Today

(line break)
If you understand what is meant by the concept “a conflict of interest,” then one doesn’t have to search too far to find Zionist backgrounds or sway in key areas. As noted earlier in Part II, Zionist knew how to exploit the basic nature of the American political system including the intimate relationship it had with media sources influencing popular public opinion or pressure.

A noteworthy example of Zionist influence on American media is the acclaimed academic and co-writer co-creator to the U.N. Charter, Virginia Gildersleeve. Her struggle against the creation of Israel is one as well dramatized as David and Goliath, but was nowhere near as popular or familiar in 1930’s – 1940’s America, not even into the 1950’s.

Gildersleeve-Virginia-C

Virginia Gildersleeve

When Gildersleeve wrote in defense of human rights and humanitarian action for Palestine, and for Palestinian families to be allowed to return to their homes and villages, a widespread campaign was launched against her, stereotyping her work as “anti-Semitic” as Zionists pandered upon Holocaust sympathies. Toward the end of her exceptional career she devoted herself to human rights in the Middle East testifying before Congressional committees, even directly lobbying President Truman to rectify the horrible neglect and violations taking place in Palestine, but to no avail. In her memoirs she wrote the defeats…”[were attributed to] the Zionist control of the media of communication.

Zionist control was indeed apparent. A study of 1917 news coverage of WWI and post-war reparations (the contentious roots of the Balfour Declaration) revealed that editorial opinion leaned heavily in favor of the Zionist posture. This continued into the 1920’s. Political analyst and author Kathleen Christison writes…

“…editorials and news stories alike applauded Jewish enterprise, heralding a Jewish return to Palestine as ‘glorious news.’

The relatively heavy press coverage is an indicator of the extent of Zionist influence even in this early period. One scholar has estimated that, as of the mid-1920s, approximately half of all New York Times articles were placed by press agents, suggesting that U.S. Zionist organizations may have placed many of the articles on Zionism’s Palestine endeavors.”
Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, by Kathleen Christison, 1st Ed. Berkeley, CA: University California Press, 2000, p. 40.

In 1953 author Alfred Lilienthal described the sweeping capture of American newspapers, magazines, and radio stations as remarkably complete. Their “…stories as well as editorial columns, gave primarily the Zionist views of events before, during, and after partition.” The Saturday Evening Post came under ruthless attack by Zionists for publishing an article by Milton Mayer criticizing Jewish nationalism as overly zealous. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, after threatening Israel’s callous treatment of Palestinians, severely underestimated the American Zionist media networks’ ability to hide opposing views to the conflict.

In a March 1949 study by the Department of State it revealed that the general American public was “unaware of the Palestine refugee problem, since it has not been hammered away at by the press or radio.” Most Americans were consumed by the threat of Soviet communism and the cold war, fed of course by most all major news mediums. Completing his book Palestine Is Our Business, author, Yale alum, and distinguished archaeologist Millar Burrows — also Vice-President of the National Committee to Combat Anti-Seminism — wrote:

“A terrible wrong has been done to the native people of [Palestine]. The blame for what has happened must be distributed among all concerned, including ourselves.

…the [counter]plan for Palestine advocated by the Arabs was a democracy with freedom of religion and complete separation of religion and the State, as in this country.

All the Arab refugees who want to return to their homes must be allowed and helped to do so, and must be restored to their own villages, houses, and farms or places of business, with adequate compensation from the Government of Israel for destruction and damage.”
Palestine Is Our Business, by Millar Burrows, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1949, p. 11, 131, 154.

As a result of his book, the American Zionist Council published and distributed articles slandering Burrows’ work as “an anti-Semitic opus.

Dorothy Thompson – “Woman of the Year”

dorothy-thompson

Dorothy Thompson, c. 1937

She was often called “The First Lady of American Journalism” and considered by many colleagues a trailblazer in the field, Dorothy Thompson also made Time magazine’s 2nd most popular woman in America behind Eleanor Roosevelt. Because of Thompson’s poignant criticism of Adolph Hitler’s methods and rise to power while reporting in Germany, she was banned from the country. Upon returning to the U.S., she began writing a very popular syndicated column called “On the Record” which often delivered crisp, outspoken and politically centered analysis of current issues. In her advocacy for the relief of Jews in Europe and Nazi Germany, especially as a woman, Thompson naturally became a celebrity in American journalism, particularly with Zionist. The 1942 box-office hit film by George Stevens “Woman of the Year” with Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy was based upon Thompson’s career. A Broadway play was also made about Thompson played by Lauren Bacall.

Effected by Holocaust atrocities and married at the time to a Hungarian Jewish husband (Josef Bard), Thompson at first favored the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine… until she physically went there herself in 1945. Thompson reversed her pro-Zionist position to a pro-Arab pro-Palestinian one, and what resulted was a complete fall from historical stardom. In his April 2015 article on Mondoweiss.net Gil Maguire gives tribute to Thompson writing…

“Dorothy Thompson’s [career] is truly a remarkable story.  Her apex was probably 1948 when Claire Booth Luce and others wanted her to run for president.  She’d been one of Zionism’s most famous and influential spokesmen.  Her defection, in 1949, created great anger in the Jewish/Zionist communities, and in few short years her career was in tatters and her influence largely gone. Today, Dorothy Thompson is virtually unknown and unremembered.  This fascinating woman who deserves to be an icon of the feminist movement, is rarely, if ever, mentioned as an important female historical figure.”

In the 1950 documentary “Sands of Sorrow” produced by the Council for the Relief of Palestine Arab Refugees, Thompson speaks specifically about the conditions of Palestinian Arab refugee camps. Sadly, in speaking out against Zionism and its conquest and occupation of Palestine, Dorothy Thompson was methodically erased from history.

There is a modern effort to bring back to public light Dorothy’s work in a documentary film entitled “The Silencing – Of Dorothy Thompson” by Alternate Focus. Below is a 4-minute teaser of the upcoming film…


(line break)

* * * * * * * * * *

To conclude this 3-part series I want to repeat a quote I often use which makes a point about sources; that is sources of information we accept, or internalize, or prefer, or for better or for worse… take as gospel. It goes like this:

“To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born
is to remain always a child.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero

(line break)
But those words of wisdom are not enough. How does one learn whether they have been taught and raised by a family, community, and nation that is on the ‘right side of history’? How can one, as can be humanly possible, decide what is right or wrong as a 4-year old? Or a 10-year old, or even a 19-year old? There is probably no one, perfect, across-the-board answer at any select moment of time and place. However, over time and with the evolution of the collective human brains, greater degrees of right and wrong, and almost right and almost wrong do indeed surface. Yes, many of them are through trial and error, but many are also learned through honest in-depth comparing and contrasting. This comparing-contrasting technique should also include subject matter one might find uncomfortable or offensive — this is truer analysis and broader critical-thinking.

There is however, an identifiable flaw or possible flaw in that process.

Through acts of violence, death, and literal or metaphorical cutting-out-tongues or amputating the ability to write, and so on, that could or does distort history and data which then leads to contaminated conclusions — it becomes even HARDER to decipher ‘the full real story‘. Why? Most often history is written by the Victors and one must dig deeper, literally and metaphorically, to hear, read, and digest the “losers” side of the story. Not too many people I know care to do that sort of legwork-homework.

Coming full circle now, on the historical subject of Easter/Eostre weekend at Starbucks in Part I and then the expansive factors and influences of WWI and WWII Zionist activities and counter-activities for the planned creation of Israel in Part II and III, we’ve discovered a broader lesser-known backdrop (if any at all) of modern Middle Eastern affairs, turmoil, and continued conflict. Obtaining this wider vivid picture created from high-zoom capabilities with multi-colored, multi-textured, multi-layered, more accurate honest representations cannot be achieved with one single camera, from one single angle, or one single frame. One must explore. One must experiment, usually multiple times, to capture the perfect image.

I dare say that my well-intended but very misinformed Fundy-Evangelist that evening at Starbucks likely “faithfully” believed one image, one angle from one camera was all his life and America needed when it came to world politics, religion and terrorism. Please, please don’t make that mistake! Completing difficult intensive homework in school or college should never stop after the graduation.

I welcome any thoughts or questions below. Otherwise, thank you for reading these three rather long extensive posts.

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

(paragraph break)

Creative Commons License
Blog content with this logo by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/.

The “Holy” Rivers

VaranasigangaThe Ganges River (or Ganga) in India has been the longest holiest river in any religion.  Hinduism spans almost three millennia in the history of humanity and it is the longest surviving religion on the planet with more than 950 million followers.  The Ganges River bears huge religious significance to the Hindu religion.  The Goddess Ganga originates from the Gangotri glacier in the Hindu Himalayan mountains 13,451 feet above sea level and flows an incredible 1,569 miles to the Bay of Bengal.  For 420 million people the river sustains life in the form of food, water, bathing, and agricultural irrigation.  As a river the Ganges contributes to more than 25% of India’s total water resources.  It is the ONLY River in the world with such a massive impact and significance on so many lives.

The religious significance of the Ganges River to her people/followers cannot be overstated.  Subhamoy Das from India writes from Ganga: Goddess of the Holy River:

“Hindus believe that rituals performed by the river Ganga multiply in their blessedness.  The water of Ganges, called ‘Gangajal’ (Ganga = Ganges; jal = water), is held so sacred that holding this water in hand no Hindu dares to lie or be deceitful.  The ‘Puranas’ or ancient Hindu scriptures say that the sight, the name, and the touch of Ganga cleanses one of all sins and taking a dip in the holy Ganga bestows heavenly blessings.  The ‘Narada Purana,’ prophesied pilgrimages in the present Kali Yuga to the Ganges will be of utmost importance.”

But the river is even more than just blessings and cleansings.  Being on the banks of the Ganges has spiritual significance too:

“The land over which Ganga flows is regarded as hallowed ground. It is believed that those who die around this river reach the heavenly abode with all their sins washed away.  The cremation of a dead body at the banks of Ganga or even casting the ashes of the deceased in its water is thought auspicious and leads to the salvation of the departed.  The famous Ganga Ghats of Varanasi and Hardwar are known for being the holiest funeral detestation of the Hindus.”

Today’s River Ganges

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Over at least the last four centuries the Holy River has become the most polluted river in the world.  The very children, who suckle from her spiritual nipples, turn around and contaminate the very milk from which they suck oblivious to how tainted their holy water has become from the headwater of the Himalayas to the poisonous outfall into the Bay of Bengal.

Five major facts from a native Indian about the Holy Ganges River:

The religious, social, economic, and ecological impact of the Ganges River is so significant that should nothing be done to resolve its crisis, the devastation would reach most of the developed world on several major levels.  Whether the river can be considered as holy and pure is an entirely different debate.  Environmentally the river has become a major crisis.  But the point of this post is not to address the obvious pollution of the river — the Indian people and their government must act — instead, the Ganges River will be my metaphor.

Before you read further, take a minute to ask and try to answer this question:  What has been the cause of the great river’s condition?  How many causes can you list?

* * * * * * * * * *

Like the Holy Ganges River – the Neolithic epigraphs (c. 9,800 BCE), shrines and figurines, then the practices, shrines, figurines, and epigraphs of the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt (3,300 – 1,300 BCE), the earliest compositions of the Brahmanas (Hinduism) around 800 BCE, the recordings of Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism between 551 – 300 BCE, the Hebrew/Judaic (150 BCE) and Roman/Christian fragmented scriptures, or bible passages (c. 300 CE), and finally the Arabian/Muslim Quran (c. 640 CE) – have all traveled through time, collected various modifiers, additives, or contaminates, all resulting in significant derivatives from the original purest water.  Click here for a more extensive timeline.

One would think that a youthful candidate-believer might think twice before drinking the, let’s say, multifarious water, right?

Wrong.

Studies done from 2007 through 2011 in 40 countries around the world, including the United States show that the rational choice to adhere to a religion is heavily self-centered, not theological, not necessarily empirical, or not even miraculous, but instead based on the question, what will the decision cost ME?

One could then argue that the decision to adhere to a religion or religious lifestyle does involve adequate cognitive skills of survival servitude to peace and passivity, a noble cause; however, it lacks in higher rational thought and objective empirical simulation to achieve truth – that is cumulative truth for greater good as well as for a greater number.

dirty-water-glassJust because everyone seems to have a pet rock or smoke cigarettes doesn’t mean it is best for 7.46 billion plus humans.  It is probably the result of clever glamorous sales and marketing, or because the ramifications of swallowing the hook, line, and sinker river water have yet to play out.

But the tragedy irony of it all is that the holy river and the tributaries that feed her have been around for thousands of years collecting billions of ingredients.  Worse yet, millions of consumers of the holy water have known of its additives, modifiers, and contaminants for well over two centuries and still choose to bathe in it, drink from it, and distribute it.  Let’s take a brief look at the various faith-stages downstream and their purity.  However, for the sake of time, space, and effort I will not delve into the more peaceful tolerant religions (e.g. Buddhism) and their holy texts, but instead concentrate on the three major Abrahamic religions historically rout with violence and intolerance.

I have purposely put the following three Abrahamic religions in chronological order, top to bottom, oldest to newest because they all originate from ancient oral Judaism and earlier Neolithic practices.  And like the Varanasi portion of the Ganges River, which originates from the Kanpur region, which originates before it in the Nepal Himalayas, so too Christianity, and more so Islam, are distant derivatives of oral Judaism.

Judaism – The Hebrew Scriptures
1st Temple of Solomon

1st Temple of Solomon

The earliest written stories or narrations of the oral traditions of the Jewish people span about 13 centuries.  Today’s Hebrew bible probably reached its current form in the 2nd century CE.  What is less well-known today is that in ancient Palestine, or the “Promised Land” to the Jews by the Hebrew God, writing was restricted to the rich nobility, governors, and high priests.  It was also much too expensive for the illiterate masses which saw writing as magical and a gift from the gods; a long-held social tradition of governing.  Manuscripts were the guarded knowledge of political and religious elites who were believed by the less educated commoners to be divine.  William Schniedewind, the Kershaw Chair of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies and Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at UCLA, speaks about the formation of the early Hebrew Scriptures this way:

“Most biblical literature was written long before [586 – 539 BCE, the Babylonian exile]However, the priests who took over the leadership of the Jewish community during this period preserved and edited biblical literature.  Biblical literature became a tool that legitimated and furthered the priests’ political and religious authority.”

Notice he states “…preserved and edited” the manuscripts.  Whether for political, economic, or religious status, oral stories put into biblical literature was contaminated edited by human priests-kings and their scribes.  Therefore, it should be asked are the following passages from the Hebrew Bible a reflection of God, or a reflection of human writers/editors and their perceptions of their life and their world?

“Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them.” (Num. 25:16-17)

“Go back and forth killing your brother and friend and neighbor” (Exod. 32:27)

“Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children” (Ezek. 9:6)

“I will wipe humankind…from the face of the Earth.” (Gen. 6:7)

“Kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man” (Num. 31:17)

“Put to death men and women, children and infants” (1 Sam. 15:2-3)

And these six passages are just a small sampling of the Hebrew God portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures.  There are many more.  One could compare this God to Satan or Hitler rather than a Father-figure with eternal love.  But if the Jewish God is based on sacred ancient traditions and scriptures, and these passages were purposely kept and passed-on by the educated religious élite over 13 centuries as “sacred”, then can this trait of the Hebrew God ever be overlooked?  It begs the question, is it any wonder why Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and Iraq have been at war, or at least political enemies, for 2,000 years?  They follow a violent, jealous, dividing, warring God!  Why?

Under this light, my metaphor – the holy Ganges River – has its early tributaries contaminated and we are not even past the first third of the river-timeline.

Christianity – The Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse

Even though the Christian New Testament is the contaminated offspring of the above Hebrew Scriptures, traditions, monotheism, and laws, their decrees of adherence cannot be misunderstood.  For instance:

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”” (John 14:6)

Tomb of the Garden, Jerusalem

Tomb of the Garden, Jerusalem

In case there might be the slightest doubt of the implications of this verse (one of several), according to the early Judaic-Christian élite gospel writers, who many followers today believe are the inspired direct (God-breathed) words of the one and only almighty God, anyone other than a publicly proclaimed, spirit-filled Christian, has no entitlement, no ear to or heart from the one and only God in Heaven.  In other words, this Christian God embitters and ignores everyone on Earth who isn’t “Christian.”  Where does this theology originate I wonder?

Because the Christian-faith is downstream of Hebrew theology and Scripture over several centuries and cultural influences, here are a few problematic scriptural tenets:

Who, if any, have ever seen God?
“No one has seen God at any time…” (John 1:18)

“But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank.” (Exodus 24:11)

“So Jacob called the place Peniel:  “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”” (Gen. 32:30)

Does this God love or hate sinners?
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

“For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You.  The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.” (Psalm 5:4-5)

How does one acquire eternal salvation?
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

“And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace…” (Rom. 11:6)

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)

Is a sinful creature created by a sinful Creator?
“(for you shall worship no other God, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),” (Exo. 34:14)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,” (Gal. 5:19-20)

If it isn’t apparent that the Christian New Testament has far too many baffling ancient oral and written tenets passed down to it from several writers from several centuries, then click here for a more complete (1,588 to be exact) list of contradictions.

It should come as no surprise that the Christian gospels, acts, and epistles – the Varanasi portion of the holy Ganges River if you will – cannot possibly be the pure perfect water of life and salvation as the original Neolithic, Indus, Mesopotamian, or Egyptian headwaters.  Or is “purest water” even possible?  Those four earliest civilizations didn’t have alphabets!  Communication was done by voice, song, body/hand motions, and epigraphs; a much more emotional form of communication primarily for governing, protection, and survival.

Islam – The Quran and Hadith
Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem

Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem

I go on record admitting that as a Westerner, born in the United States and having traveled to most of the world EXCEPT Asia and those portions of northern and eastern Africa that are Muslim, I have a very limited understanding and knowledge of primary Islam.  Therefore, it is quite difficult to get a concise consensual explanation of Islam from various sources in the West.  Yet, this quandary falls in line with the point of this post:  with so vast and so old a plethora of tributaries feeding the Ganges River, and Islam being at or near the river’s outfall of Abrahamic religions and tenets, it should not be surprising.  Islam too is not a monolithic religion and no one Muslim behaves as another.  Yes, the river has become quite convoluted now.

Nevertheless, I want to be as fair and objective as possible.  And who better to explain Islam than thousands of Muslims in a Gallup International poll inside 35 predominantly Muslim countries, and released by Unity Productions Foundation:

Another popular explanation of primary Islam is the plaque or card-flyer composed by Enver Musad in 1995 called The Truth About Islam.  You may find it here.  Unfortunately, like all the major world religions, not every Muslim adheres to one summary or interpretations of the Quran…again, supporting this post.

For the sake of time, space, and effort I will again condense the stigmas of Islam down to my three major issues:

#1 – Islam’s earliest traditions and tenets come from contaminated problematic roots, as I’ve already explained.

#2 – The status and role of women (Sharia) in many Muslim countries.
It was only as recent as May 2005 (effective in 2007) that Kuwait allowed their women the right to vote and contest elections; and Kuwait is considered one of the more Westernized Islāmic nations.  Most Muslim nations still do not give women political or social equality; a practice which has apparently continued since about 640 CE after the Quran was written.  Why has it taken Muslim men some 1,400 years to interpret the Quran and resolve this?  Then again, it has taken the Christian world almost as long to rectify it as well.  Ah, the woes of an entirely contaminated holy river.

Corporal punishment of “rebellious” women has been a widely accepted practice based upon chapter 4, verse 34 of the Quran for centuries.  However, only over the last several decades has it come under intense scrutiny.  A simple Googling of the verse (e.g. WikiIslam’s translation) demonstrates the confusion among Muslim scholars.  Whether it is now changing or not doesn’t compare to the 1,400 years of cultural Sharia, i.e. the upstream waters.

#3 – How same-sex equality is viewed by Islam and the Quran.
The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) list countries that enforce corporal punishment or imprisonment upon same-sex relationships and activities; the majority are Muslim countries.

As I’ve inferred in a couple of my posts and directly challenged scientifically the errancy of anti-same-sex, pro inequality groups and laws in my post Sexual & Gender Ambiguity: My Once Gross Ignorance, I take serious issue with any group or nation that allows the violation of personal civil-rights to choose their sexual activity or partner regardless of gender.  There simply isn’t the scientific facts to support such bigotry, hate, or even passive intolerance.  Typically, the language of fervent religiosity, whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim, is evidently “above” mundane mortal science; as if Scripture and theology are impregnable and infallible.  Science is sub-standard and unable to emit truths about this life, this planet, and its brilliant inhabitants.

At least the holy Scriptures of the three major Abrahamic religions all agree on the dubious “abomination.”  Specifically in the Quran, Sura 4:20-21, 7:80-84, 11:78-81, 26:162-168, 27:55-57, and 29:28-31 all generally infer separation from God and society.  The Muslim Hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad but not broadly endorsed as authentic by all Muslim scholars) is more pronounced on its abomination and punishment according to Sharia.  At the very least, Islamic culture and society is intolerant of same-sex behaviors and relationships.  This position is entirely because it is the offspring of Christianity and Judaism, the upstream.  These three issues are just a sampling of other problematic edicts I find with Islam and monotheistic faiths.

* * * * * * * * * *

You might be asking why any of this is relevant.  It is relevant because most of the domestic and world political and social problems, including atrocities, are caused by ignorance ill-founded prejudices, elitism, segregation, and egocentric trans-generational teaching of those three ill-conceptions.  Religious elitism, often discreetly projected behind political or military agendas, has fueled most of humanity’s darkest most horrid events and eras.

Assuming the a priori condition of a God, one God does indeed exist, an additional question that bears equal importance is this:  If you proclaim intimate knowledge of and experience with a one and only God in Heaven, then specifically and unanimously(?) how has this knowledge and experience come to you?

To my knowledge there are only two methods of revelation and experience from an unseen spirit-God(1) miraculous or paranormal experience(s), or (2) through their faith’s biblical scriptures and other followers.  Based on these two methods, it begs the following question:  Which is most reliable and most believable?

In my personal experience, when followers/believers are questioned about their biblical foundations of faith, they eventually – sometimes quickly or slowly based upon their apologetic savvy – resort to the “miraculous or paranormal” experience, which is not only harder to acutely examine by unaffiliated outsiders, but just as difficult for the believer/follower to explain!  Why is this?  It is exhausting because the vast majority of miraculous/paranormal experiences are extremely unique to that one person’s life, personality, and immediate environs, and in almost all cases those experiences are different from other followers/believers.

This does not mean those experiences are untrue or any less valuable to the world and life of others – especially if they turn the person into a more loving giving human being for a greater number of people – and this is fine. It becomes highly individualized, which should be an attached liability clause upon its veracity. Hence, it should be kept strictly an individual “faith.” But pushing (forcing?) it beyond that does make it impossible to standardize, prove, or unite “one true religious faith” – the one lie belief that has bred immeasurable death and suffering throughout all of mankind’s history!  The thousands upon thousands of various sects and denominations of the world’s faiths bear witness that there is not and never has been one true faith.

With regard to a scriptural foundation, I have adequately shown the futility in portraying a unanimous, in-perfect-harmony life with all other “identical believers”.  I have also written two historically-centered posts (view the History category for those posts, especially Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ, The Suffering Messiah That Wasn’t Jesus, and Correcting the Gospels of Jesus) illuminating the less-known cultural and political factors influencing early Christianity during and after the sacking of Jerusalem in 69-70 CE by the Roman legions and Empire.

All world religions have their time-specific, contributing cultural, political, and economic influences upon their infancy and roots.  Interestingly, they often have less to do with miraculous, 1-in-a-million “divine events” or teachings, and more to do with mere survival or progressive status.  Think about that.

This returns us to my metaphor…

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”  He could not have been more accurate, both in the literal sense of a river and in the story of man and man’s perception of the world told through his many varied religious faiths and just as many deconstructions and reconstructions of spiritual truth.  Like a river, the religious water has never been the same, never as “pure” as the headwater.  There are as many contaminants as there are purifiers and certainly no river is better or untouched than another.

Besides, water is only one small eco-system in an infinite table of macro-systems in an even larger more infinite cosmos of systems.  As I continue to traverse this Ganges River, I repeatedly ask why the big puppet shows about a mythical deity no one group of puppeteers can define with harmony or consensus.   Though Heraclitus taught his principle over 2,500 years ago, it rings truer today among naïve, unexamined fundamental religiosity.

(paragraph break)

Addendum — After chatting with a blog-friend about this post, I realized the importance, no the paramount risk, we as Americans, as well as the human race, will one day face if we (Americans particularly) do NOT throw out our imperialistic, colonialist mentality (revolutionary heritage?) regarding foreign policy and perceptions.  As the excellent video Inside Islam reports, as true as our domestic problems will become EVERYONE’S problems nationally, it is just as true globally with all races, all religions, all nationalities — because due to our insatiable imposing colonial-imperial self-interested heritage, ala the 1948 creation of Israel in Palestine as one example, we must NOW deal with the fires, the monsters America helped create around the world…not treating “them” Arab foreigners as ourselves or without full respect, without the highest tolerance and dignity offered.

On that note, and as I hoped I have conveyed, our personal, national, or “religious” differences are a result of our own pollution, contamination, and apathy, ignorance, violence… whether passive or direct.  Let’s disarm ourselves by simply starting ‘at the Himalayas’.  Or better yet, start with the Universe/Multiverse and cosmos, the onset, the dawn, the time and space before time and space, which much later feeds the Himalayas, which feeds the “Ganges”.

“Hello.  I am a human-being from planet Earth.  How can we collaborate and serve each other?”

Peace for you and all.

(paragraph break)

Live Laugh Love

(paragraph break)

Creative Commons License
This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.

A Supreme Decision

marriage equalityOn June 26, 2013 in a landmark decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision in DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples, was unconstitutional.  This decision marks the beginning of the end of religious-based groups and politicians’ using the government, the laws, taxes, and marital benefits to discriminate against same-sex couples and dictate what is and isn’t endorsed by law in private individual homes.  The Supreme Court also dismissed a case by California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative trying to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  American President Barack Obama applauded the highest court saying the decision strikes down “discrimination enshrined in law.”  Yes, the ruling is a historic victory for civil rights in America.  The seeds of theocracy were thwarted once again!

But the decision, the debate, and its roots are sometimes lost or glossed over in the hype, emotion, and most certainly the mythical history and theological mumbo-jumbo.  The intention of this post is to remind everyone what the controversy is really about:  the separation of church (individual’s faith) and state… as well as how the neurological, biological, and embryonic evidence increasingly show that love, marriage, and sex are clearly NOT defined by or governed by some unanimous(?) religious ideology, theology, or book.  On the contrary, nature seems to dictate truths to humanity as humanity’s understanding evolves.  And in the case of love, marriage, sexuality, Proposition 8, and DOMA “nature” is screaming at humanity to evolve and revamp its understanding of human nature inside nature.

Products of Millions Not Either Or

intersex_babyAs I wrote about in my April 2011 post Sexual & Gender Ambiguity: My Once Gross Ignorance, one out of 100 births do not fall under traditional male-female physical identifiers.  On a molecular scale one out of 1,666 births has no clear XX or XY chromosome structure.  In other words, the gender and sexual makeup of these inter-sexed babies (who by the way grow into adults) inherit from their embryonic stage and beyond thousands upon millions of combinations of neurological and hormonal designs.  If sexuality or gender were black or white, then nature would show this consistently by having either hetero males or hetero females, nothing in between.  But clearly this isn’t the case and certainly isn’t any “law”.

For millennia mankind has only understood the visible world, or a world that could be observed and examined by our five senses, including genitalia and breasts.  Not until the last two to three decades has medical science revealed compellingly the incredible neurological-hormonal diversity within each of us.  It is a big part of what makes each of us a unique one in 7.13 billion.  And inter-sexed births are only the VISIBLE evidence of this unimaginable diversity!  Every single one of us have a slightly different feeling about attraction, at any given time in any given circumstance – compounding the complexity even more – and we act upon the attraction differently (if slightly) each time.

For example, some men are more aggressive than others, sadly even to the point of harassment or rape.  That is one extreme in a select group or type of males found all over the world.  Some women have the same level of sexual aggressiveness or sensuality while others have a more reserved approach or interest or frequency.  Many times these attractions are affected by environment.  But just as equally they are influenced by our internal neurological and hormonal blueprint.  And if “nature” can sometimes vary the genitalia, the macro-scale, then it certainly stands to reason that nature can vary the internal designs, the micro-scale.

Genetic or Lifestyle Choice?

What does medical science show us?  Three fields of science breach the sexual-orientation issue:  epigenetics, neurohormonal theory, and pheromone theory.

Epigenetics, the study of changes in gene manifestation or expression, over the last couple of decades has revealed that not all traits are INherited but heritable by external or maternal mechanisms; e.g. a pregnant mother shouldn’t drink alcohol or smoke at the risk of fetal defects.  Maternal mechanisms, including ancestral, certainly influence inborn traits even though they are not part of the DNA sequencing.  The point to consider is the diverse multitude of influential prenatal factors.

Neurohormonal theory, the study of embryonic homosexual and heterosexual brain development, has increasingly shown that not only do we ALL start out with the default “female” brain and that we ALL start out sexually as unisex, but during the second trimester there are a multitude of genes triggering or inhibiting hormones and enzymes for both the brain and hypothalamus as well as the sexual organs.  As I wrote in my February 2013 post Toss the 2-D Glasses, structural size differences of the anterior hypothalamus, the organ which regulates sexual behavior, has been observed between heterosexual and homosexual males.  This deserves repeating:  there is indeed a structural size difference measured between hetero and homosexual males.  It is not merely a post-natal adolescent or adult life-choice.  Reread the previous three sentences to allow it to sink in.

The brain registers love as love, despite gender.

Pheromone theory, the study of released airborne molecules which elicit certain social reactions from a member of the same species, has increasingly shown different secretions and excretions will elicit different sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual males and females.  These amounts and different chemical makeups (primarily estrogen steroid derivative or EST) are all regulated by the anterior hypothalamus.  This EST regulation has been confirmed in several varying species of laboratory animals, as well as in human males and females.

Scientists decipher 3 billion-year-old genomic fossils. Click on image for larger view & explanation.

The brain (or the anterior hypothalamus) registers love as love, despite gender or antiquated traditions.

Whether one thinks the scientific data is preliminary, compelling, or conclusive, at the very least neuroscientists and embryologists agree that sex-genes and sexual hormones are unpredictably developed and expressed under very complex systems.  Therefore, sexuality and orientation cannot be rigidly oversimplified into A and/or B formulas or law.  Nature and the scientific data simply do not reflect that position.

Shaky Religious Foundations

Despite the U.S. Constitution stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” much of what proponents of DOMA and Proposition 8, like the National Organization for Marriage, construct their stance and subsequent law-making on religious traditions.  I have written numerous posts regarding the fallacy of religious monism.  This also includes the global fallacy of “biblical inerrancy” claimed by Jewish, Christian or Islamic fundamentalists alike.  I will later be publishing another article on biblical inerrancy called The Holy River.

I have also discussed the social dangers in preaching and teaching exclusiveness and elitism, which directly or indirectly fragment unity and nurture ill-will and intolerance to diversity – diversity confirmed in a multitude of life systems, Earth systems, atomic and subatomic systems, and cosmic systems, but even more importantly in spiritual or metaphysical systems!  Without having to repeat much of what I’ve already covered, this is a short list of those related posts…

Origins of Judeo-Christianity and Its “Holy” Bible:
Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ
The Suffering Messiah That Wasn’t Jesus
Canaanites Killed & Removed From Native Lands
Correcting the Gospels of Jesus
Whoops! Not God’s Wrath After All?

On the science of spirituality, the paranormal or metaphysical:
Connectivity – Part 1
Connectivity – Part 2
Connectivity – Back to Physics Class
Connectivity – The New Paradigm

(paragraph separation)

* * * * * * * * * *

Unquestionably nature, or more precisely human nature, cannot be “cured” or “cleansed” of what is perceived morally as right or wrong.  Nature is oblivious to morality and we should give eternal thanks for that… treating all humans as our equal.

(paragraph separation)
Creative Commons License
This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.