Saturday, July 28, 2007

A Truth to be Kept in Mind

"Government doesn't exist to protect the people. Government exists to protect the government."

Private statement by British admiralty official regarding the British responsibility in the "Lusitania" disaster, 1915.

The truth of the statement is being demonstrated with particular vividness in Washington currently. Unfortunately it's one of those catchy aphorisms that we think "sounds good" (like "taxation is theft") but then dissolve in the long-inculcated fiction that government, more accurately government officials and legislators, serve the people and uphold their interests and protect them from harm.

We need to remind ourselves every day of those words from the Winston Churchill admiralty of the First World War: "Government doesn't exist to protect the people. Government exists to protect the government."

Ironically, the German government made a greater attempt to prevent American and British civilians from meeting death on the luxury liner "Lusitania" than did the US and British governments. At the New York dock the British passenger ship's hold was clandestinely loaded with explosive armaments being smuggled unlawfully to England from supposedly "neutral" America. The passengers were unaware they would be sailing on a floating bomb; when the liner was later hit by a single torpedo in the war zone, there was a tremendous secondary explosion of the munitions which sank the ship in less than twenty minutes, with great loss of life.

Before the Lusitania sailed from New York the German government sent fifty anonymous telegrams addressed to prominent passengers, warning them not to sail on the liner. More importantly, the German government placed the following advertisement in the leading metropolitan newspapers next to Cunard Line ads.


'Travelers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain or of any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.

'Imperial German Embassy,

'Washington, D. C., April 22, 1915.'

The German government had pre-paid for its ad to be placed in fifty US newspapers a number of days ahead of the liner's departure date. Of all the papers, only the Des Moines Register published the warning on the requested date. It is reported that the U.S. State Department frightened newspaper publishers by raising the possibility of libel suites if they published without prior clearance from State Department attorneys. The result was that despite the German early request, the advertisement was not published in New York until the morning before the Lusitania sailed.

"Government doesn't exist to protect the people. Government exists to protect the government."

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Wrestling Lessons

I have decided to re-post my two articles on wrestling. I received a favorable comment on one recently (see Labels for originals), and they are among my favorites.

The most instructive four hours I ever spent, as far as mass psychology and mob mentality are concerned, were at an evening of professional wrestling matches in West Palm Beach.

Why was I there? I knew professional wrestling was phony and I had no interest in wrestling generally. As it happened, a young law clerk at the appellate court where I worked was a wrestling addict who illustrated that the word “fan” came from “fanatic”. He had ringside seats for the entire season, a girlfriend who apparently shared his enthusiasm, and a generosity that resulted in my being asked to come along for an evening.

If the night’s display was surreal, no less surreal was the fact that this particular young lawyer had ringside seats there. Law clerks (research and case analysis aides to judges) have an often deserved reputation for timidity. With a few exceptions they have chosen to avoid the hurly burly of practicing law competitively in favor of spending as many years of their lives as possible in a quiet courthouse cranny wrapped in Westlaw and Microsoft Word.

The wrestling fan was no exception. He embodied the cliché of the shy appellate court gnome who would not have lasted a month as what the gnomes themselves jokingly called a “real lawyer”. He was thin, awkward, meek, and hesitant. I thought it was amazing that he had even managed to get a girlfriend. I will leave the psychological analysis to you.

We arrived at the coliseum as part of a huge, noisy crowd which rose up the sides of the building in layer after layer of baseball caps, bulging jeans and T-shirts, and skirts and blouses overflowing with the results of high carbohydrate diets rich in beer.

When the announcer introduced the first wrestler, and the giant came striding toward the ring, resplendent in flowing red-white-and-blue cape and shining red boots, the audience – and in particular women – went into a frenzy of screaming and applause. Many had home made signs which they raised and waved. Some tried to throw themselves as living offerings into the path of the behemoth.

Obviously, this was a Good Guy. That was the first thing I learned: There is always a Good Guy and a Bad Guy, if not at the beginning of a match, by the end.

The contrast between good and evil was evident when a murderous roar of rage assailed the second competitor, who would presumably have been killed except for the intervention of security guards and a few wild lunges of his own at threatening fans. It was clear that one of the roles in this pretend world was that of macho audience member who physically attacks wrestler in the aisle – knowing that both parties will be kept from harm by the guards. He would never try such a thing alone with the wrestler in the parking lot, even plentifully lubricated by Budweiser.

It’s easy to see wrestling on TV, and so I don’t need to describe the well-rehearsed moves and throws and leaps and fake moans of pain. It is essentially a gymnastic display by stereotyped actors who earn their money not only for their thespian ability and charismatic qualities, but also for putting up with some rough treatment.

My education came from the audience’s reaction to the set piece they knew would occur in and around the ring. Because only the most severely retarded could have believed that the wrestling and the wrestler's personalities were real, most of the audience must enjoy not only the wrestlers' role-playing but also their own. They loved being caught up in, and becoming an active part of, this makebelieve world of supercharged drama.

As I said, there is always a Good Guy and a Bad Guy, just as there is in the White House propaganda of international relations. You even hear generals refer to “the bad guys”. Very profound.

In professional wrestling, what makes the Good Guy good and the Bad Guy bad?

First, appearance. The Good Guy is good looking and the Bad Guy usually looks bad, if not really ugly. A handsome or pleasant face marks a hero, while a homely, scowling face designates a villain. It helps if the villain appears foreign in some way, or of an unpopular race.

Second, reputation. The Good Guy is good primarily by designation. Also, the Good Guy often comes to the ring after fighting fairly in a previous match and being victimized by a sneaky villain. If he was victimized by the particular villain he's wrestling tonight, the element of revenge drives the crowd's expectations to tornadic proportions.

Third, demeanor. The hero will be confident and even cocky, but he is not as outrageously vain and boastful as his opposite number, who is likely to point repeatedly at himself to invite applause and then howl at the audience for not giving it. He is the embodiment of hubris. As far as the audience is concerned, the worst possible thing that can happen is that the villain is not brought down because of his pride and actually wins the match. He will be hated all the more next time.

At this point our moral training might lead us to expect that the hero abides by the rules and fights fair, while the villain breaks the rules and fights dirty. To a point that is true, but only to a point.

The most interesting thing I learned beyond the awesome effect of “good” and “bad” was that the Good Guy always starts out fighting fair but often gets hurt, and almost defeated, because the Bad Guy breaks the rules, ignores the referee, attacks unexpectedly from behind, uses illegal holds, and even resorts to furniture as a weapon. At the last moment – unless the Good Guy is scheduled for defeat that night – the hero gathers his strength and turns on the villain with even greater disrespect for the rules than the villain showed. Now it is the berserk Good Guy who cheats, ignores the referee, and dishes out unlawful punishment. The things he does would have marked the Bad Guy as the very personification of sadism, but torture is fine if the Good Guy does it.

Does this mean that the Good Guy has become the Bad Guy? No! That’s the fascinating point. The more the hero rains illegal violence on the villain, the louder the audience cheers. The Good Guy becomes a virtual whirlwind of venom, ignoring all laws and ethical standards, doing more outrageous things to the Bad Guy than were done to him, and the audience loves the Good Guy for it.

It is during this stage that a fourth characteristic shows itself:
Courage. The hero was brave even during agonizing setbacks, refusing to retreat or ask for mercy, staggering forward for more punishment even when he could hardly stand. Now that the tables have turned, we see that the boastful villain is a wretched coward. He cowers, begs, even tries to escape from the ring. Even now, though, he is treacherous: He may kneel and plead for mercy, only to put the hero off guard and attack him with an illegal blow from behind.

Good appearance, good reputation, an attractive and moderate demeanor, fair fighting until provoked, and courage. How are those reflected outside the wrestling arena, in the mob’s reaction to propaganda in international affairs?

(To be continued.)

"Wrestling" Republished

Wrestling Lessons, Part II

Today I’m going to apply my wrestling perceptions to international conflicts.

There is always a Good Guy and a Bad Guy. With rare exceptions, people identify with the Good Guy and see his victories as theirs.

Can you remember the United States ever fighting a war in which there was no Bad Guy, or in which America was not the Good Guy?

What makes the Good Guy good and the Bad Guy bad?

First, appearance. The Good Guy is usually good looking, or at least pleasant looking, and the Bad Guy looks unpleasant, if not outright ugly. It helps if the villain appears foreign in some way, or of an unpopular race.

In international propaganda, “we” look better than “they” do. Our facial features are familiar, while theirs are depicted as alien, or distorted into unpleasant expressions in the case of people, like the Germans, who may actually look better than we do. Our soldiers are handsome and familiar-looking, while theirs are, for example, short, yellow, and buck-toothed, with slanty eyes behind thick glasses – or swarthy, big-nosed, and bearded. Our clothing is “normal” while they are “towel heads”. If “they” are from the Arab World (other than Israel), they are usually shown in U.S. photos as poorly dressed in un-American robes, squatting in the dirt next to ruins – not shown in the modern western dress in a well-furnished home one would actually see if one visited middle class and professional people in Arab countries. How many photographs have you seen of an Arab in a business suit, carrying a Gucci briefcase?

Appearance is related to the first aim of war propaganda -- to “dehumanize” the enemy so as to make the Good Guys willing to see the enemy killed, or even willing to help kill him. We must never be allowed to identify with the people our leaders want to destroy. Showing the enemy looking “different from us” is an important step toward dehumanization.

Second, reputation. The Good Guy is good primarily by designation, and not because he has done anything in particular to earn the title. In international politics, unlike wrestling, there is the additional arbitrary factor of where one is born. For most people, where they happen to be born determines where their patriotism lies. Loyalty goes with birthplace, which designates where the “Good Guys” come from . . . whether it’s California, Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, Berlin, or Marseilles. Few Americans would ask, “Why should I fight for America instead of North Korea?” It’s just a given.

(Wrestlers know how to use the “patriotism” factor. Some deck themselves out like the star spangled banner for a kind of “Captain America” effect, while some deliberately appeal to the denizens of a certain region, as by wearing cowboy boots and a Western hat. Wait a minute now; I could be talking about politicians!)

Third, demeanor. The hero may be confident and even cocky, but he is not as outrageously vain and boastful as his opposite number. Boasting is less important on the international front than in wrestling, but what Americans cheer as admirable in the shouting bravado of a U.S. Marine would be seen as threatening bluster in an armed Al Qaeda trainee. Foreign leaders we are meant to dislike are almost always portrayed as bombastic boasters.

Fourth, courage. The Good Guy is always brave, even when he is in serious trouble, but the Bad Guy exhibits bravery only as long as he’s on top. When the Bad Guy gets into trouble, he cringes, cowers, kneels and begs, retreats, and even tries to jump out of the ring and run away from the fight.

Yes, “our” people are courageous by nature, by virtue of being born where we were, while the enemy appears brave (if ever) only because of insane fanaticism or outlandish religious beliefs, or drugs, or brainwashing, or some other factor which explains the apparent bravery away. When an American “celebrity” opined that the men in the planes which brought down the twin towers were brave, he was promptly ostracized. The enemy can never be brave. His attacks, no matter how courageous and self-sacrificing, are “cowardly”. Professional military men may acknowledge the bravery of enemy troops, but that remains a private matter.

Fifth, fair fighting and abiding by the rules differentiate a Good Guy from a Bad Guy . . . but only to a point. What the audience wants, and often gets, is a Good Guy who is driven over the edge by a cheating, dirty-fighting villain, so that the Good Guy gives back worse than the Bad Guy gave in the first place. Whereas rule-breaking, sneaky tactics, and torture were booed by the audience when they are used by the villain, they are cheered when used by the hero. The very things which most marked the Bad Guy as a villain are now approved for the Good Guy. Here we see also the holy power of “retaliation” as compared to villainous “aggression”. "Isn't it terrible? But we have to do it."

We Americans were always told – until the past few years when the truth became too obvious to hide – that American soldiers fought cleaner than their enemies, abided by the rules of war and the Geneva Convention, and were in particular distinguished from the enemy because the enemy used torture and Americans didn’t. Atrocity and torture tales – true and untrue – are the staple of war propaganda. Why was Saddam Hussein so bad? Mainly because he tortured people. (How many times before and during the invasion of Iraq did I see that photograph of an empty chair in the middle of an empty room with some kind of line hanging above it, supposedly going to prove Saddam Hussein’s use of torture. It could have been in Minnesota.) Why were Nazis so bad? Because they tortured people. Many a Hollywood “war movie” told us so. And what was the main Nazi evidence that the Soviet Bolsheviks were so horrible? The Bolsheviks tortured people.

What is now the main evidence before the world that Americans are bad? They torture people. While the president of the U.S. says (in ludicrous contradiction of hundreds of photographs and documented reports) that “Americans don’t torture people”, he seeks and obtains laws which make torture legal. Has torture become respectable – as torture by the Good Wrestler is okay under certain circumstances – or has America become a Bad Guy? It sometimes happens, even in wrestling, that a Good Guy turns bad.

To wrap this up, when I read the daily propaganda and the results of opinion polls and man-in-the-street interviews, I often think of that evening of wrestling in West Palm Beach. It was truly illuminating.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

It's All in the Family


And he has been through that sequence not once but twice – first when he was kicked upstairs from his disastrous fraudulent performance as Deputy Secretary of Defense and was immediately hired as President of the World Bank, and most recently when he was kicked out as President of the World Bank and instantly hired by the American Enterprise Institute, a so-called “think tank”, as a visiting “scholar”. (A “think tank” is Washingtonese for a propaganda-generating organization in scholarly guise, and a place to go when you’ve lost your job.)

Wolfowitz is the person primarily responsible for lying the US into the catastrophic holocaust of Iraq – predicting the invasion would be a "cake walk", that the Iraqis would welcome the aggressors with singing and dancing, and that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily”. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell initially blocked Wolfowitz’ war schemes, but Wolfowitz, along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, held secret meetings about invading Iraq from which Powell was excluded.

During Wolfowitz' pre-war testimony before Congress, he ridiculed General Eric K. Shinseki's estimates of the size of the post war occupation force and estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in the war. General Shinseki had testified that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq.

Wolfowitz testified:
‘There has been a good deal of comment—some of it quite outlandish—about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark.’
In 2006, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid testified to Congress that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct. In July 2007 the US has at least 154,000 troops in Iraq, with 30,000 sent over as the “surge”. That’s about twice what Wolfowitz said would be needed, and events show that it is still insufficient.

Eventually Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz left the Bush administration as total failures, and Wolfowitz was punished by Bush & Co. with a nomination to be president of the World Bank. Criticism was widespread in European media. The former chief economist for the World Bank said that if Wolfowitz became its president, "'The World Bank will once again become a hate figure.” But the nomination was, of course, praised by the US press.

Wolfowitz’ presidency brought not only protests, but also a gigantic salary for Wolfowitz’ girlfriend, and loudly protested appointments of two of his Bush administration buddies, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, as his close advisors with $250,000 tax-free contracts. Basically, Wolfowitz stole from the World Bank to enrich his friends and was properly fired . . . although he called it a resignation.

End of the line for Wolfowitz, right? Shouldn’t he be looking at the “Help Wanted” ads or considering a career in Burger King management? Oh, no. As soon as he walks out the door of the World Bank he walks into the American Enterprise Institute -- which just happens to be home to other leading advocates of the Iraq war, including omnipresent Richard Perle (ex chairman of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, who has at least as many reasons to be jobless as Paul Wolfowitz has), former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Cheney.

It’s like a family reunion.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Addition to Wednesday's Post


If only Colin Powell had spoken up like this about Iraq before he helped invade it.

AP Washington
'Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East should find some way to talk to Hamas.

'"I don't think you can just cast them into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community," Powell said in a radio interview.

'He said Hamas, which controls Gaza, is not going away and enjoys considerable support among the Palestinian people.

'"They won an election that we insisted upon having," Powell said.'


From the Jewish Telegraph Agency (Baltimore Jewish Times) July 17:

‘Israel and the Quartet’s strategy has been to isolate Hamas, considered a terrorist group ["Considered" by whom?], and support Abbas. If Palestinian standards of living can be raised under Abbas’ regime while Hamas is unable to deliver in Gaza, then more Palestinians likely will support Fatah and its position of acceptance of a peaceful two-state solution to the conflict, the reasoning goes.’

Does that not sum up my accusations in my previous post? Here’s more of the JTA article:

‘A group of 10 European foreign ministers recently wrote an open letter to Blair calling the Quartet’s "road map" peace plan a failure, urging Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians and recommending the establishment of an international force to deal with the conflict.

‘Clara Marina, a research fellow at London’s Centre for European Reform, said the letter to Blair demonstrates a widely held view among European leaders that the Quartet’s policy of isolating Hamas has been responsible, at least in part, for the current suffering among the Palestinians, and even Hamas’ military takeover of the Gaza Strip. . . . By all accounts, Gaza is teetering on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Some human rights groups lay the blame on Israel, saying the Jewish state put Gaza in an economic stranglehold by closing its border crossings. [”Some” lay the blame on Israel? Who doesn’t?]

‘In their letter to Blair, the foreign ministers urged the former British leader “to pressure Israel to arrange for the transfer of all taxes due, the release of the thousands of prisoners who do not have blood on their hands," as well as “a freeze in new settlements and the evacuation of unauthorized settlements."’

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Is It Clear to All What is Happening Here?

I don't mean to underestimate my readers, but many Americans do not comprehend what is happening in the Middle East, and so I am posting this.

1. Bush/Israel push for free elections in Palestine, thinking their pet Palestinians (Abbas/Fatah) will be elected.

2. Oops . . . Palestinians elect wrong group to run their government. They elect candidates of honest and efficient Hamas instead of corrupt Fatah. (What is “wrong” with Hamas is that it represents Palestinian interests rather than the interests of Israel and refuses to accept the Israeli occupation as legitimate.)

3. Despite the free and fair elections and formation of a stable, popular government under Hamas, Bush/Israel move to cut off funds from the Palestinian government and people in order to undermine the elected government.


4. Bush/Israel aid an effort by Abbas/Fatah to overthrow the legitimate government by force, but Hamas beats back Fatah and continues to control Gaza, leaving Abbas/Fatah forming a Bush/Israel backed illegitimate “government’’ in the West Bank, contrary to the election results. (The US press reports this in reverse, indicating that Hamas “seized” control of Gaza.)

5. Bush/Israel seek to bolster the unpopular and illegitimate West Bank faction by resuming some funding, freeing some unlawfully withheld funds which were due to the Palestinians long ago, and making a show of cooperation and generosity . . . all directed exclusively at the phony West Bank “government” instead of the elected government.

(Latest bulletin on Israeli good will: ‘CAIRO, July 17 (RIA Novosti) - Israeli authorities have stopped a convoy of trucks carrying UN humanitarian aid to Gaza at Israel's Kerem Shalom crossing near Egypt. Under the United Nations World Food Program, vital humanitarian aid has been entering Gaza through the Karem Shalom crossing under an agreement between Israel, the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas to facilitate the movement of supplies. The small, crowded Gaza Strip is heavily dependent on outside aid, and has been increasingly isolated. Over 15 trucks carrying sacks with wheat flour destined for Gaza were diverted earlier Tuesday to a warehouse in Egypt.’)

6. Suddenly Israel is ready to release some of its 10,000 plus Palestinian political prisoners to the obedient Fatah. ‘A committee of Israeli Cabinet ministers has Tuesday approved a list of 250 Palestinian prisoners to be released this week as a gesture in support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.’ (Voice of America)

7. Recently booted British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- a loyal pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian, Bush lapdog – becomes European “envoy” to aid the mythical “peace process”.


8. Bush now announces a grand Mideast Conference in which Abbas/Fatah will negotiate the future of the Palestinian people who refused to elect them and are still loyal to Hamas. Of course all of the Palestinian representatives to the conference will be hailed as “respected”, while the uninvited elected officials will be styled “terrorists”. US media -- even habitual critics of Bush -- hail Bush’s announcement as a sign that Bush is finally going to do something about the “peace process”.

U.S. pledges $190 million in direct aid to Fatah government’

‘AP WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday announced an international conference this fall to include Israel, the Palestinian Authority and some of their Arab neighbors to help restart Mideast peace talks and review progress in building democratic institutions. . .

‘Bush said the conference would include representatives from Israel, the Palestinians "and their neighbors in the region" and said participants would include just those governments that support creation of a Palestinian state. [Read: “those governments that support creation of a docile Palestinian entity conforming to Israel’s wishes”.]

‘He said Abbas and his new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, "are striving to build the institutions of a modern democracy."’
[That is probably the most outrageously hypocritical lie VIEW FROM THE MOON has ever quoted.

‘Bush also pledged increased U.S. aid to the Palestinian government of President Mahmoud Abbas and called for the convening of a meeting of "donor" nations to consider more international aid, including the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.’

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are the “moderate” Arab states whose leadership has been bought by the US. They will obediently support Israel’s interests while performing a show of concern for the Palestinians. The idea that “just” those bribed governments support creation of a Palestinian state is a stomach-turning bit of verbal acrobatics meaning just the opposite: The Palestinians want a Palestinian state. Lebanon and Syria and other Muslim states (including Iraq, if the US had not destroyed it) want a Palestinian state. The qualification for attendance at Bush's conference isn’t to want a Palestinian state, but to approve a toothless Palestinian mock-state subservient to Israel.

Saturday, July 14, 2007


Oh, it is so important that these dangerous men be caught!



They are probably the only "fugitives" who can’t see, can’t feed themselves, and have to be pushed along in wheelchairs. On second thought, I’m not too sure about that “only”. The Wiesenthal “Nazi hunters” may yet find a 100 year old man to accuse of persecuting Jews. Ah well, anything to keep “the holocaust” in the news.

MSNBC/Associated Press July 13


‘Austria wants to find Alois Brunner and Aribert Heim [one a doctor and one a Nazi military officer, Ret.], both in their 90s if still alive, and bring them to justice. [Brunner is 95 years old if still alive; he worked for the US CIA after the Second World War. Heim is 93 if still alive; he had a medical practice at Baden-Baden spa until he disappeared in the 1960’s.]

‘A notice posted on the Justice Ministry’s Web site this week features photos and descriptions of Brunner and Heim and offers rewards for information leading to their capture. Brunner, the most-wanted Nazi war criminal, according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, is described as having mutilated hands and only one eye, after reportedly being disfigured by mail bombs.’


1. Is it really “Austria” that “wants to find” these men?

2. Did the Wiesenthal Center mail those bombs or did they just cheer from the sidelines? Is Austria having any success prosecuting the mail bomber?

Thursday, July 12, 2007

A Study in Contrasts Part 1 -- A Mighty Ballyhoo: Daniel Pearl

This article is related to my previous post. To see through the slanted ways information is presented to the American public, one must be alert not only when words such as “controversial” are used, but also when unimportant matters receive a disproportionate amount of publicity, and important matters receive disproportionately small coverage. By such methods Americans are told not only what to think, but what to think about.

Recently I kept seeing adulatory headlines about a new movie called “A Mighty Heart.” There was a virtual saturation bombing of praise of that “major motion picture”, starring Angelina Jolie. I had no idea what it was about, thought it might be a sports story, but it was mentioned so intrusively in so many places over several days that I became suspicious. The anticipated answer soon presented itself: It was of special Jewish interest. It was about the kidnapping and killing of a Jewish journalist, Daniel Pearl.

A major motion picture . . . yet during his life Pearl did nothing more notable than many other reporters. As film critic James Berardinelli wrote, “Most world renowned people have achieved that status as a result of something accomplished during their lives. Unfortunately, Daniel Pearl was among the few who became famous as a result of his death.”

The film was assigned the primary keyword “Anti Semitism” by Internet Movie Database, leaving us with no doubt about its main message. In spite of that and the incredible hype, almost nobody wanted to see it. “A Mighty Heart” fizzled at the box office when released last month and has been called “a mighty disappointment” for Angelina Jolie and Paramount. “The film had its screenings cut in half recently to give it a longer shelf life.” Despite lack of public interest, I expect we'll be treated to TV reruns for years.

Daniel Pearl was a reporter for the “Wall Street Journal”. In Pakistan in 2002, on his way to interview a sheik, he was kidnapped by a group which claimed that Pearl was a CIA agent. They sent the United States a range of demands. When the demands were snubbed, Pearl was then killed in a grisly fashion recorded on videotape. On the Pearl video, pictures of dead Muslims and similar scenes are superimposed around the image of the captive, including pictures of President G.W. Bush shaking hands with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Arabic text reads: ‘”My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish-American .” The relevancy to his captors of his being Jewish was hatred of Israel, and the belief that US aggressions in the Middle East can be blamed on Zionist influence. Pearl’s final words on the video were "My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish," after which he added that a street in Israel's Bene Barak is named after his grandfather.

The point of this post is the disproportionate attention and glorification devoted to one newspaper reporter – not a famous one – when a number of other journalists and Americans killed in the Middle East, including Israel, have quickly sunk into obscurity. The movie has failed, but the mighty machinery that brought it into existence and promoted it also produced a fantastic amount of post-mortem glorification for Daniel Pearl.

Pearl's widow wrote the published memoir, A Mighty Heart , on which the movie was based.

In 2003, a book titled Who Killed Daniel Pearl? was published, authored by Bernard-Henri Lévy.

HBO produced a film titled “The Journalist and The Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl”, which is still being shown.

Daniel Pearl Music Days have been held worldwide since 2002.

American composer Steve Reich wrote 'The Daniel Variations' in response to Pearl's murder.

In April 2007 Pearl was added to the Holocaust Memorial on Miami Beach as the first non-Holocaust victim.

In May 2007, the Communications Technology Magnet School at Birmingham High School was renamed the Daniel Pearl Journalism and Communications Magnet.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has created a “prestigious” (of course) ADL Daniel Pearl Award.

The Daniel Pearl Foundation was formed by Pearl's parents, Judea Pearl (B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the Technion, Israel) and Ruth. It is understandable that the distressed mother and father would wish to honor and commemorate their son, but the scale of the commemoration is beyond belief, and far beyond the reach of most mothers and fathers. The honorary board of the Daniel Pearl Foundation includes among others, no less than a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, among many other notables such as Christiane Amanpour, Ted Koppel, and Elie Wiesel. The Foundation appears to have very generous funding.

Pearl's parents published a collection of responses sent to them from around the globe, entitled "I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl..” Respondents in the “I Am Jewish” collection include Theodore Bikel, Alan Dershowitz, Kirk Douglas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Larry King, Shimon Peres, Daniel Schorr, Elie Wiesel, and many more.

The purpose of this post will become more dramatically clear in Part 2, when the extravagant glorification of Daniel Pearl will be contrasted with the deliberate neglect of other persons, such as Rachel Corrie, who deserved more fame and commemoration and yet, in contrast to Pearl’s towering pedestal, were deliberately shut away in the dark storerooms of history.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Playing with Words and Clues

I started playing this game long ago when I noticed how often journalists refer to something as “controversial” when they (their masters, that is) want to make it look undesirable. In some contexts – such as religion or sociology or historical studies -- certain words, such as “controversial”, were almost sure to be followed with references to what might be described as Jewish concerns. Also, when the “news” repeatedly reports something which seems oddly out of proportion to its importance – for example when a movie in the making gets tremendously more coverage than other films, or a celebrity’s DUI arrest is headlined repeatedly (e.g. Mel Gibson) -- there will very often be something of “Jewish concern” under the surface. When I saw the incredible amount of coverage being given to filmmaker Gibson’s drunk driving offense and something unspecified he said to a law officer, my antennae went up and in a couple of days I saw for the first time a reference to his “antisemitic rant”. There were even complaints that the sheriff's office had not publicized the ever so important anti-Jewish remarks earlier!

An early example: While I was living in England in the early 1970’s, it was impossible to overlook that the British government was harassing and persecuting Scientologists, who had an international campus in the south of England. I knew enough about Scientology that I could see no reason why they should be singled out for such blatantly unfair treatment. And so I played my word game, watching for clues in the newspapers, and soon found, “Accusations of Anti-Semitism: Scientology Teaches Power of International Bankers.” The item went on to explain that “international bankers” is a code word for “Jews”. Huh? What if you’re really talking about international bankers?

In the article which follows, as soon as I saw the word “controversial” in the first paragraph I guessed correctly that some reference to Jews would ensue.

‘VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday formally made the majestic, complex and controversial millennial-old Latin Mass more accessible to Catholics, who have said the Mass in their modern local languages for four decades.

‘ . . . many church leaders are opposed to restoring and expanding a Mass they say . . . includes an offensive Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, asking God to lift their "blindness." . . . Criticism also came from Jewish leaders, unhappy with the restoration of a prayer for their conversion, which is spoken once a year during Easter Week. The Anti-Defamation League called the move a "body blow to Catholic Jewish relations."’

For 2000 years the Latin Mass was the only Catholic Mass. Then in the 1960s, “Vatican II's efforts to modernize the church replaced it" with a version to be spoken in the local vernacular.

The traditional Latin Mass is being brought back because so many Catholics want it, even to the point of staging sit-ins to demand it. ‘A growing number of Catholics of all ages have sought out the elaborate Mass with its sonorous Latin prayers, Gregorian chants and formal choreography of gestures.’

‘"Anyone who seeks religion seeks a sacred moment with God, and that requires a certain reverence that comes with the old mass and its other worldliness," said South Carolina resident Brian Mershon.’
‘Historian and linguist Eric Hewitt . . . regularly attending Latin masses, finds it "more symbolic, which I think makes it more difficult but also more powerful" than the modern Mass.’

I wrote the above on Saturday, and on Sunday the following headline was conspicuous. Note that by now the Pope’s decision is not just “controversial” but “highly controversial”.

Pope's move on Latin mass 'a blow to Jews'

Jason Burke in Paris
Sunday July 8, 2007
The Observer
‘Jewish leaders and community groups criticised Pope Benedict XVI strongly yesterday after the head of the Roman Catholic Church formally removed restrictions on celebrating an old form of the Latin mass which includes prayers calling for the Jews to 'be delivered from their darkness' and converted to Catholicism.
‘In a highly controversial concession to traditionalist Catholics, Pope Benedict said that he had decided to allow parish priests to celebrate the Latin Tridentine mass if a 'stable group of faithful' request it.

The Latin Mass was the keystone of Catholic worship for almost 2000 years and was effectively replaced (partly due to Jewish pressure) only 40 years ago at Vatican Council II, but, “The Observer” continues, ‘the older rite's prayers calling on God to “lift the veil from the eyes” of the Jews and to end “the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ” - used just once a year during the Good Friday service - have sparked outrage.’

‘Yesterday the Anti-Defamation League, the American-based Jewish advocacy group, called the papal decision a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations". ”We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday mass, it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted," said Abraham Foxman, the group's national director, in Rome. “It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.”

The reporter’s use of the word “bewilderment” in the next paragraph is akin to “controversial”. It is designed to form a certain opinion in the reader. Exactly who was bewildered, and why?

‘The Pope also sparked bewilderment when he made no mention of anti-Semitism . . . in a speech last year at Auschwitz. He also failed to acknowledge that there might be some degree of collective responsibility of the German people.’

My feeling about the whole thing is, “Tend to your own religion and don’t meddle in other people’s . . . and that includes not telling the Pope what he should put in his speeches."

Play my little word game. It’s fun and educational.

Friday, July 6, 2007

UPDATE JULY 7: ADORED BY HORDES has been attacked, warned, and threatened by "Anonymous" for linking to this blog
I request that those who value freedom of speech and sincere debate of facts follow the link to ADORED BY HORDES and post comments in support of MarcLord. Thank you!

The original part of this post follows.


I’m taking the unusual step of prominently posting this link to ADORED BY HORDES instead of just adding it to my Links list.

Why splash it all over the top of the page?

Because the blogger is a friend of mine? (No, I don’t know him except through a couple of recent Comments.)

Because ADORED BY HORDES is a very creatively written blog, and Prozac the Clown is a colorful character? (Not quite. It is creatively written, and Prozac the Clown’s visits are a lot of fun, but that’s not the reason for this fanfare.)

What is the reason?

Ego, ego, ego! My vulnerability to praise and flattery! ADORED BY HORDES has just published the best review I’ve ever had in my life.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

An Atrocity Within an Atrocity. Who ARE the “Terrorists”?

Israel is attacking Gaza without provocation again.

What Is a Militant?

Judging from this report, a “militant” is a person you kill when you invade his land, and if people fight back against your aggression, they are “gunmen”:

‘GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli troops and armor crossed into the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing seven Palestinian militants, including six from the Islamist Hamas group that controls the coastal territory.’

Why Are Israel’s Gunmen “Forces” while Their Victims Are “Gunmen”?

‘Israeli forces exchanged fire with gunmen in al-Maghazi refugee camp. . .’In addition, 13 people, including children, were wounded. The Israeli army did not disclose whether the children were “militants”, but an unarmed Hamas cameraman apparently was: He ‘was injured by what witnesses said was a tank shell and was seen later being shot in the legs from afar as he lay on the ground.’ Swissinfo reported that television footage showed gunfire aimed in his direction as he was lying on the ground, and that later, hospital officials said both of his legs were amputated.
(Lest we forget, the refugee camps exist because people driven earlier from their homes by the Zionists have to live somewhere.)

Why is that atrocity not treated as news in America even though it was funded there? Especially in light of other things reported by Swissinfo and other sources: ‘Israeli soldiers fired on a rooftop where several journalists, including a Reuters camera crew, were filming.’ In addition, Israeli soldiers violated the rules of war by grabbing Palestinian ambulance workers and using them as human shields in order to escape from the area. As always, the familiar refrain after Israel atrocities: ‘An Israeli military spokesman said: "After conducting a preliminary examination, we know nothing about such an incident".’

Hamas Gains BBC Journalist’s Freedom, but No Thanks Except from the Journalist

This latest unprovoked Israeli aggression on Gaza comes only a day after Hamas, the legitimate Palestinian government which is trying to survive the Israeli onslaught, arranged the release of a BBC correspondent who had been held captive by another group for almost four months. Hamas representatives ‘whisked him and the media off for breakfast at the home of the Hamas leader and former prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh.’

‘The 45-year-old reporter showed his gratitude towards Hamas, saying the heat was on his kidnappers when the group took control of Gaza after fierce factional fighting with the western-backed Fatah faction. "Until the Hamas takeover, I felt that the kidnappers were completely relaxed and secure, but the game completely changed when Hamas took over," Mr Johnston said.’

So Hamas is a Hero, Right? Wrong.

The US/Israeli media have fallen all over themselves to be sure that Hamas should receive no appreciation, much less praise, because of its feat. ABC news trumpeted, ‘Hamas Takes Advantage of Johnston Release’. Apparently one “takes advantage of” arranging the release of a kidnapped person by virtue of having arranged the release.

The Chicago Tribune, instead of headlining credit for Hamas, complained:
‘Hamas seeks political gain from hostage's release
Faction touts freeing of Briton as evidence that it's a credible political and diplomatic partner
By Joel Greenberg

(“Touts”, in case anybody didn’t notice, is not a nice word. It is a negatively loaded word.)

The Tribune quickly lets us know that in spite bringing about the freedom of the journalist, ‘Hamas did not appear to win new credibility among its opponents. A U.S. official said Hamas "still has a number of obligations to meet before it can be a partner that can be counted on and worked with.”’

The Jerusalem Post likewise reports, “The United States said Thursday that Hamas's role in freeing British Broadcasting Corp. correspondent Alan Johnston has not changed the world's opinion of the Islamic group. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, "I don't think the world views Hamas any differently as a result of this." (The “world’s opinion” is a really big opinion. Are you sure about that, Spokesman McCormack?)

So, Hamas is still “bad” no matter how much good it does, and Israel, always “good”, is once more doing what it does best, murdering people on their own land.

And speaking of kidnapping, why is it that Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit is always described as “kidnapped” even though he was captured in a war situation, while people unlawfully hauled away by Israeli invaders are described as “arrested"?

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Libby and Law

I imagine that the blogosphere is lit up like a Fourth of July night sky with posts about Libby, and so here I’m going to comment strictly on the legal aspects. This might be helpful to some people. I remember how little I knew about such things when I entered law school.

(I’ve been writing about Libby for some time; please look at my Labels.)

The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

A “reprieve” reduces the severity of a punishment without removing the guilt of the person reprieved. A pardon removes both punishment and guilt. In constitutional language, President Bush has granted Libby a reprieve.

The Constitution gives the President almost unlimited power to pardon or reprieve in the case of federal crimes. Certainly, however, the framers of the Constitution never foresaw that a president would himself break the law and then promise an underling such as Libby that the underling would be pardoned if he would lie under oath to protect the president.

My analysis is that while President Bush unarguably had the constitutional right to commute Libby’s sentence, he did not have the constitutional or legal right to engage in a deception in which he used the pardon power to hide his own crimes or those of his vice president by, in effect, bribing a witness before the witness testified. It seems obvious that Libby was informed by Bush and Cheney from the beginning that he could lie as much he pleased under oath because the commutation of any prison sentence was guaranteed. It’s worth noting that if the promised commutation had not been forthcoming, Libby could have done serious damage by belatedly telling all.

A legal act may be part of the evidence of a criminal offense, even though not in itself illegal. A legal act may, for example, be essential to the success of a criminal conspiracy.

A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to achieve an illegal goal through legal and/or illegal actions, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) in order to raise money for charity (a legal end) is a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the goal. On the other hand, conspiring to set up a charitable organization (a legal act) in order to unlawfully launder money (an illegal end), is also a criminal conspiracy. Likewise a presidential pardon of a felon (a legal act) in order to hide crimes and obstruct justice (an illegal end), may also be considered a criminal conspiracy.

The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. Obstruction of justice in the United States refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in “The Federalist #74” concerning a constitutional provision for a presidential pardon: ‘The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.’

Alexander Hamilton didn’t know What-Me-Worry Bush did he? “Dread of being accused of weakness or connivance” for pardoning Libby? Bush considers all accusers so far beneath him that their outcries could never beget circumspection in that blockhead.

Monday, July 2, 2007

The Impeachment of Jehovah

The Pan-Dimensional Court of Truth for the 5,000th Galactic District has convened on Earth’s Moon to consider Articles of Impeachment against “Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh.”

The Articles accuse “Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh” of falsely claiming to have created the Earth and all the living creatures on it in a single week, to have established laws which human creatures must obey if they are to escape unjustly hideous consequences, and to have chosen a certain small group of humans as his favorites to be exalted above all others and to subjugate all others.

‘Said chosen group, known as Hebrews, Jews, or the Children of Israel, are the authors of certain books collectively known as the Tanakh or “Old Testament” of the Bible which set out the purported words and acts of Jehovah. Because it appears that the accused, Jehovah, has either fled the jurisdiction or never existed in the first place, and because all witnesses in the case are dead, the evidence which will be placed before the Court consists solely of said Tanakh, and so it is in fact the Old Testament which is under judicial scrutiny.'

‘It might appear pointless to impeach a possibly nonexistent deity based on documents whose authors have been dead for thousands of years, but among not only Jews but also the much greater multitude of Christians on Earth the Old Testament is still held out as holy scripture, “the word of God”, and is influential today in shaping the minds of many humans, as well as relied upon by certain of the “Children of Israel” for fraudulent claims to ownership of real estate which have resulted in prolonged bloodshed.'

The allegations supporting the articles of impeachment are:

1. Incompetence

Although claimed to be perfect, all good, omnipotent and omniscient, Jehovah created a world into which evil could repeatedly come. To wit:

Creating a first man and woman so defective that they quickly did the one thing he told them not to do and as a consequence were subjected to permanent punishment rather than wisely taught.

Creating a first family so dysfunctional that one sibling murdered the other.

Selecting as his “chosen people” a whining tribe which again and again ignored his commandments.

Creating angels which could and did rebel against him.

Demonstrating a lack of confidence in himself by cruelly testing loyal Hebrews like Abraham and Job to see if or prove that they would function according to his blueprint.

2. Favoritism and Lack of Proper Judicial Temperament

In spite of claiming to be the creator of the Earth and heavens and all the creatures on Earth, making an exclusive contract with a small tribe and promising to exalt them above all others. “I am the God who created heaven and earth. [T]he kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit if forever.” Book of Jubilees 32

Making promises to his “chosen people” which would inevitably lead to strife, war, and usury: "The LORD has today declared you to be His people, a treasured possession. . . Then he will place you high above all the other nations he has made. He will give you praise, fame, and honor, and you will be a people holy to the LORD your God. . ." Deut 26:18-19 "All the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of Yahweh; and they shall be afraid of you. Deut 28:10 You shall lend to many nations, and you shall not borrow. The LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you only will be above, and you will not be underneath." Deut 28:12-13

Using terror tactics even against his favorites:

But if you do not give ear to the voice of the Lord your God, and take care to do all his orders and his laws which I give you today, then all these curses will come on you and overtake you: A curse will be on your basket and on your bread-basin. You will have few children. Your land will have few crops. Your cattle will be cursed with few calves, and your flocks will have few lambs and kids Yahweh will strike you with consumption, and with fever, and with inflammation, and with fiery heat, and with the sword, and with blight, and with mildew; and they shall pursue you until you perish. Yahweh will send on you the disease of Egypt, and other sorts of skin diseases which nothing will make well. Yahweh will strike you with madness, blindness, and panic. Yahweh will strike you in the knees, and in the legs, with sore boils, of which you can not be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. You will become a thing of horror. All the nations where the LORD will send you will make an example of you and ridicule you. Deut. 28:12-45

The LORD said to [an angel], “Go through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst.” 5 But to the others He said in my hearing, “Go through the city after him and strike; do not let your eye have pity and do not spare. 6 “Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark.” Ezekiel 9

A jealous and avenging God is Jehovah; Jehovah is avenging and wrathful. Jehovah takes vengeance on His adversaries, and He maintains wrath against his enemies. Nahum 1:2

3. Excessive force

When displeased with his chosen Israelites, drowning every human on Earth except Noah and his passengers.

Destroying the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when offended by the actions of some of their inhabitants without even specifying what they had done to incur his wrath. “Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” Gen 19:24

I, Jehovah thy God, am a jealous God. I punish children for their parents' sins to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. Ex 20:5

32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Numbers 15

4. Emotional Instability; Arbitrary and Capricious Behavior

Punishing Moses by preventing him from entering the promised land because instead of “ordering” water to pour from a rock to satisfy the thirsty Jews as Jehovah had told him to do, Moses struck the rock with his rod to bring forth the water.

Commanding Abraham to kill his own son and then telling him not to at the last moment.

Making the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the Jews living among them, and making Moses, the Jews' leader, highly regarded in Egypt, but in spite of the divine power to influence Egyptian public opinion, murdering all of the Egyptians’ first-born sons in order to encourage the Egyptians let the Jews leave Egypt.

Turning a woman to salt because of a trivial infraction: “But Lot’s wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.” Gen 19-26

“This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.” Gen 17:10-11

5. Cruelty Unbefitting a Deity

Allowing Satan to horribly torture his most devoted servant, Job, and kill Job’s servants and children, in order to win a bet with Satan.

Inventing the concept of eternal damnation.

Creating the plagues of Egypt. ‘Then the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Take handfuls of soot from a furnace and have Moses toss it into the air in the presence of Pharaoh. It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt, and festering boils will break out on men and animals throughout the land.” So they took soot from a furnace and stood before Pharaoh. Moses tossed it into the air, and festering boils broke out on men and animals.’ Exodus 9:8-10.

Passing over all homes in Egypt and killing every first-born son (except sons of Jews), even while predicting, “loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.” Exodus 11.

6. Racism

Commanding his chosen tribe to avoid mixing with other peoples through intermarriage or otherwise.

“I am Jehovah your God, who have set you apart from the peoples.” Lev. 20:24

In Ezra 9, the abhorrent racial mixing of the Jews with other peoples was reported to some Jewish leaders: “So that the holy race [holy seed] has intermingled with the peoples of the lands.” The Hebrew listeners were appalled, and Ezra was so upset that he ripped his clothes and pulled out tufts of his hair and beard.

On that day they read aloud from the book of Moses in the hearing of the people. . . So when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the alien mixture. Neh. 13:3

Jehovah’s policy toward people displaced or captured by Jewish invasion – as Jehovah “clears away many nations before them” -- is that the Children of Israel “shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them. . . For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Deut. 7 "If you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you” there will be terrible consequences for Israel. . . “a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish. . .” Joshua 23

7. Substandard Skills in Personnel Management

Placing his newly minted humans, Adam and Eve, in a garden with an attractive fruit tree from which he ordered them not to eat even though he knew or should have known that they were sure to eat from it.

Putting the Ark in charge of an alcoholic captain even though it contained the only survivors of Jehovah’s genocide.

Selecting as his chosen people, and Earth’s rulers, a stiff-necked Semitic tribe which proved so erratic and disobedient that he chastised, threatened and punished them repeatedly over centuries.

8. Suppression of Arts

“Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Ex 20:4

9. War Crimes and Genocide

Jehovah said to Moses, “Send out for yourself men so that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I am going to give to the sons of Israel. See what the land is like, and whether the people who live in it are strong or weak, whether they are few or many.” The spies reported: “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey. . . Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large.” 30 Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, then he fought against Israel and took some of them captive. 2 So Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, “If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.” 3 The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Numbers 13

33 Then Israel turned and went up by the way of Bashan, and Og the king of Bashan went out with all his people, for battle. . . 34 But the LORD said to Moses, “Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand, and all his people and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon, king of the Amorites.” 35 So they killed him and his sons and all his people, until there was no remnant left him; and they possessed his land. Numbers 21

After Israel conquered Jericho, “They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.” Joshua 6:21

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites. . .” ‘And the Jews warred against Midian, as Jehovah commanded Moses; and they slew every male. They killed the kings of Midian. The sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little children; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods they took as loot. They burned all the cities where the Midianites lived and all their settlements .’ When the Israeli army returned from battle Moses was angry at its officers and asked, "Why did you let all the women live? Put every male child to death, and every woman who has had sex relations with a man. But all the female children who have had no sex relations with men, you may keep for yourselves.” Numbers 31