Reflections on Syria: Part 2

Introduction

This is an update of a similar essay I'd posted on August 27 at:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/08/pending-usa-response-to-syrian-chemical.html

This essay has three parts:

• A Variety of Comments posted on YahooNews

• Some thoughts on Congress giving Obama authorization

• Why my presidential contract is starting to look pretty good.

A Variety of Comments posted on YahooNews

Within the past few days, I posted these ten comments on YahooNews, which will give you an idea of why I think any USA military response to chemical attacks in Syria would be absolutely stupid:

ONE:

“But, ultimately, we don’t want the world to be paralyzed,” [Obama] said. Listen up, you stupid little man: The world won't be paralyzed simply because you opened your big mouth talking about "red lines." All you did was paint yourself into a corner. Personally? I think you ordered US forces operating in Syria to launch those chemical attacks or to goad the rebels into doing so. There's a special place in hell for you and for your toady John Kerry.

TWO:

Why isn't anyone asking why Assad would have approved a chemical attack in the first place, especially against a target that (apparently) didn't include rebel forces? Recently, the Arab League decided someone had to do something to punish Assad for this dastardly deed. I'm sure Saudi Arabia could afford to send the limited attack message Obama is now twisting in the wind to send. Let them take care of this. Or let France do it - alone. This is Congress's golden opportunity to give such a resounding NO, that future presidents would think long and hard before speaking so easily of red lines that absolutely can't be crossed. You know, "red lines" such as "Based on evidence that North Korea is abusing its people, the USA is justified in sending a few cruise missiles as a token of our moral outrage." When will we stop doing STUPID?

THREE:

"...Kerry said...there is new evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces used Sarin gas in an attack on its citizens..." Ahem, perhaps Kerry meant to say, "there is evidence that Sarin gas was used in Syria." But that's not the same thing as saying "we have proof that Assad was responsible for this." You know? When I see that tool John Kerry defending his boss, reminds me of another tool I saw making a case for his boss - before the UN, no less. That of course would be the disgraced Colin Powell. He'd once been spoken of as a presidential possible. People don't speak that way about him any more. End of story. Too bad Colin.

FOUR:

"...the pause would also allow [Obama] time to build international support." Why bother? If Obama's prestige is so much on the line that he simply can't NOT strike, he won't need international support. Besides, if the case against Assad is so overwhelming, why did the British say no?

"The chairman of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose," Obama [said]. What is meant by "whenever WE choose?" There is no WE here. Any decision to strike will be the choice of ONE man - Obama. In the modern era, all US wars are ultimately the province of one man. During the height of our folly in Iraq, if there had come any time that Bush decided to call it quits, HE could have done so. Congress's input not being necessary.

Does Obama think he can get away with conducting just a little war against Syria? How would we react to any enemy that would make even the slightest war-like move against us? How would we have reacted to a handful of suicide bombers knocking down a few of our buildings and killing a few thousand of our citizens? Oh that's right...during the 9/11 attacks, that's exactly what happened. The blow was mostly to our ego, since our casualties and property damage was, relatively speaking, negligible. But, no, we didn't retaliate tit-for-tat; we decided to invade and create hell on earth for hundreds of thousands of civilians in two countries over a period of years. So great was our thirst for revenge. Do you think the Islamic militias are going to take even a slap on the wrist by Obama lying down? Have we learned nothing over the past decade?

FIVE:

"The president doesn't need 535 members of Congress to enforce his own red line," King said.

And just who does King think POTUS is that he can set "his own red line" - a one man branch of government who operates without any checks on his power?

SIX:

"...Obama was 'abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief' by turning to Congress for permission to attack." Obama can only be the CINC of an attack-authorized military if and only if Congress gives that authorization. And anything to the contrary in the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

SEVEN:

So Obama thinks he's got to punish Assad for allegedly giving orders that led to the killing of (some say) over 1,000 civilians because of chemical attack. And that's the "red line" everyone is talking about - "He used chemicals." So where was the US response in 1982 when the Hama Massacre took place in Syria? From Wikipedia:

Syrian journalist Subhi Hadidi, wrote that "under the command of General Ali Haydar, besieged the city for 27 days, bombarding it with heavy artillery and tank [fire], before invading it and killing 30,000 or 40,000 of the city's citizens – in addition to the 15,000 missing who have not been found to this day, and the 100,000 expelled."

Oh, I get it. Back then, chemical weapons weren't used, so it was okay to kill up to 30,000 (mostly) civilians. And this Obama guy was supposed to be "change you can believe in." Go figure.

EIGHT:

Let me see if I understand this. Obama wants to punish Assad for presumed responsibility for a chemical attack that killed hundreds of civilians. Even though there was no possible militarily-related reason for him to launch such an attack. It seems Obama wants to wear the mantle of world's policeman. But tell me this, Mr. President: Should the world have stood united in condemning our nuking of Nagasaki which killed 60,000 civilians? Even though there was no militarily related reason for us to launch that attack? That took place a mere 3 days after we nuked Hiroshima, which was a day that will live in infamy since that made the USA the world's first nuclear terrorist. BTW, the ones we were trying to terrorize were the Russians, not the Japanese. You know what, Mr. President? People are laughing at our hypocrisy.

NINE:


"I have been presented with concrete information and, without going into details..." Oh, I get it. He [NATO director Anders Fogh Rassmussen] had access to secret evidence which will never be seen by the public - or so he says.

"...it would send a 'dangerous signal to dictators' if the world did not respond firmly." To dictators? Suppose one of the world's democracies were to pull such a stunk? Suppose the USA were to decide to nuke a city for no militarily-valid reason, would Fogh-of-War favor his native Denmark firing a couple of cruise missiles at the USA in a limited strike in order to teach the USA a lesson? [NOTE: The USA went down in history as the world's first nuclear terrorist for the completely militarily-unnecessary killing of 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.]

Fogh-of-War also thinks NATO should defend Turkey. However, Syria would be completely justified in attacking Turkey since Turkey has been helping the rebels, thereby engaging in act of war against Syria.

BTW, how does a guy like Fogh, from a country like Denmark which has absolutely nothing in the way of a military tradition, get to be in charge of NATO?

TEN:

Compare these two statements, the first of which is from the article:

"We cannot accept a world where...innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale [1,400 dead]," President Barack Obama told reporters at the White House.

 "We cannot accept a world where innocent civilians are killed by nuclear terrorists on such a terrible scale, as recently happened to 60,000 in Nagasaki. Therefore, I move that responsible officials within the US government be brought here to Nuremberg to stand trial side-by-side with Nazi war criminals," the Soviet ambassador announced today...

The pot calling the kettle black?

Some thoughts on Congressional Authorization

Obama isn't answering one critical question: If he can't get Congress to support his bid for a micro-war against Assad, would he still proceed with the attack? Obama won't respond to reporters asking this question. Maybe he'd respond if the House and Senate leaders (Boehner and Reid) were to send a joint letter asking this of POTUS.

I would like to see Congress not only decline to give Obama the authorization he seeks, but to pass a Joint Resolution declaring that such any USA military response would be in violation of the will of Congress and that, furthermore, such a response would be an impeachable offense. But of course Congress would do no such thing. The Democrats wouldn't want to embarrass their boss. And the Republicans would vote in support because they wouldn't want to see any erosion of the president's power (as they see it) to wage unilateral war. In case they, once again, win the White House, they'll want their guy to have as much power as possible.

The only reason Congress would even consider giving Obama the green light is, we still have a Two-Party Congress instead of one consisting of non-party affiliated independents.

My Presidential Contract

This is where I get to say, "I told you so."

I ran against Obama in 2008 and 2012, both times under contract as explained below. Back in 2006, I saw completely through the "peace" candidate who billed himself as "Change you can believe in." My complete contract is posted at:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html

However, I'm going to quote selected parts of this contract, relevant to the situation in Syria, to close out today's post:

QUOTE:

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2012

Preamble:     I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2012 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following text, which concludes with my signature block, comprises this contract in its final form. This document has been under construction for the past two years and its supporting essays are available at http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com .

[The following is a partial list of the 31 promises I listed in my legally-enforceable contract.]

ONE:     If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

FOUR:      Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently in Iran.

FIVE:     Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States militarily intervene in the affairs of any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from all foreign nations, except for the token numbers needed at our embassies. This will include total withdrawal from NATO and will also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of terrorist suppression and training of local forces. Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.

TWENTY-SEVEN:     During my first State of the Union address, I will declare that any Congress consisting of Democrats and Republicans is unrepresentative of the people, and therefore urge voters to replace their Congressmen with independents.

:UNQUOTE.

Not many people read my blog posts and even fewer read them during my campaigns for the US presidency. However, if I had been able to present my case to a broader audience, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today - acting like lemmings making a suicidal dash to the sea.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"I can say 'I told you so,' but I take absolutely no pleasure in doing so" - Steve Searle.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

TO: SGI (Part 2)

General Introduction

Today's post is the next installment in my series, the first of which was entitled "TO: SGI (Part 1)," which was posted on August 24.

These "TO: SGI" posts are primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International. Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology.

This link will connect you to the homepage of my Lotus Sutra Champions blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this new site:

http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html



Specific Introduction

Today's post will cover two topics:

• Back in 1976, I destroyed my gohonzon; but in 1996 I was issued a new one.

• On Aug. 28, 2013, I was banned from the Chicago SGI Culture Center by "director" Ethan Gelbaum.

My Gohonzons

Background

I first joined the SGI (known as NSA - Nichiren Shoshu of America - at the time) in 1974, which is when I received my gohonzon. When I quit NSA in 1977, I secretly destroyed my gohonzon by setting it on fire, dousing it with water, and tossing it into a trash can. What I should have done was return my gohonzon to NSA. However, I destroyed it because I wanted to prove to myself that I hadn't been brainwashed into thinking this was some kind of amulet with magical powers that could destroy my life should I mistreat it.

I didn't have any contact with NSA/SGI until 1993 when I rejoined, but this time - under my terms. I was asked if I had a gohonzon due to my having been a member 16 years earlier. I confessed that I had destroyed it. SGI offered me another gohonzon, but I declined, insisting that I could practice by using a "gohonzon" of my own creation. This was just an ordinary piece of paper on which I typed (in English) a variety of names and phrases that I could focus on while I chanted. The names were of persons in my life who were important to me, while the others words were representative of a variety of Buddhist concepts.

At no time did the SGI inform me that I was engaging in heretical behavior by chanting to my own gohonzon. I do remember, though, one leader gritting his teeth and saying, "That's not a gohonzon." To which I replied, "Since the word 'gohonzon' means 'supreme object of worship, veneration, or focus,' and that's how I view it, this typed sheet of paper fulfills the purpose and definition of 'gohonzon' as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not asking for your approval nor am I expecting that you would ever chant to it."

Ethan Gelbaum

At this point, I will introduce Ethan Gelbaum who runs the Chicago SGI-USA Community Center. He introduced himself to me as the regional director upon my first meeting him about a month ago, but I've seen him mentioned on-line as an SGI Vice President and Vice General Director. In any event, he's pretty high up the chain of command, which means he gets paid for his services as a leader. And by that I mean, "paid" in terms of this being a full-time job. Try as I might, I couldn't find much info on-line regarding Ethan's long-runnning stint with the SGI. So it seems to me, he's pretty good at keeping a low profile.

I will mention Ethan more prominently in the next section of this article. But for now, I will highlight his unique reaction to the news that I had destroyed my original gohonzon - he was angry. And that's unique because none of the other SGI leaders or members I'd told about this back in 1993 reacted that way. In fact, they tried very hard to get me to accept a new gohonzon. But I demurred, preferring the "gohonzon" of my own creation instead.

My New Gohonzon

After a couple of years, though, I did finally apply for a new gohonzon and was issued one.  And, to this day, I still have this gohonzon enshrined in my home. But I rarely chant to it, preferring instead to read aloud from my English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra, with my eyes riveted to the pages of this translation. I usually recite in my own home, but on occasion I'll recite while sitting on a park bench.

As far as the gohonzon itself is concerned, I do not cherish it (as Nichiren urged) nor do I worship it. When I do chant to it, I feel a sense of comfort and find it to be a useful focal point for my concentration during those rare times when I do gongyo or chant daimoku. Nowhere in the Lotus Sutra - which I've recited over 150 times - is there any mention of the gohonzon. Shakyamuni never had a gohonzon nor did any of the other Buddhas or bodhisattvas mentioned in the Lotus. So, as far as I'm concerned, the gohonzon was an expedient means invented by Nichiren meant to serve as a focal point for the faithful.

The only other significance my gohonzon has for me is my promise to return it to the SGI, should I decide I don't want to keep it any longer, rather than destroy it as I had done in the case of my first gohonzon. Looking back on how I destroyed my first gohonzon over 35 years ago, I regret having broken my word to protect it. In my defense, however, I will say the SGI bears some responsibility for what I did. Nothing happens in a vacuum; so when I destroyed it, that was in reaction to the oppressive, cult-like behavior of NSA/SGI at the time. Yes, I was angry because I felt NSA misbehaved in terms of how it treated its members - expecting much from them, but not even giving much in the way of respect back in return.

A blackly humorous anecdote

NSA/SGI was also at fault for how easily they conferred gohonzon, not really treating it as the object of respect it was supposed to be. This brief anecdote highlights my point:

A couple of years before I rejoined SGI in 1993 (I think it must have been around 1987), I ran into my brother-in-law who had been out partying at a local dance club. We sat down on a bench and chatted for a few minutes, when two people came up to us. These two were doing street shakubuku on the last day of a month-long shakubuku campaign. They asked if we wanted to go to a Buddhist meeting. My brother-in-law wanted to go, since he was curious about this Buddhist thing I used to do. So we hopped into a cab and went to the SGI Community Center which was on Wrightwood Avenue in Chicago at the time.

I made it clear to the SGI members that I was a former member who was there only because my in-law asked me to join him. Did I mention that he was very drunk? Like I said, he had been out partying. So I couldn't help but laugh (to myself) as he was guided through the process of filling out a membership application (at this, his first meeting!) and paying a $15 fee so he could get his gohonzon that night! So I was treated to the amusing spectacle of watching my bro-in-law stand in line with the other new members to receive their gohonzons from a visiting priest. As he walked down the center aisle toward the priest, I could see he was drunkenly weaving instead of walking straight. So I thought, "Looks like SGI will give anybody a gohonzon these days in order to jack up the shakubuku numbers. Has it really come to this?"

Yes, I'm afraid it has (or at least "had") come to this. So when Ethan Gelbaum chose to express a degree of anger toward me for having destroyed my gohonzon, he should have realized that the disrespectful attitude the SGI itself had toward their supreme object of worship might have been an indirect cause for a member, in turn, disrespecting it. Besides, as I've already pointed out, the SGI was eager to get me to accept a new gohonzon knowing full well that I had destroyed my first one.


My banishment from the Chicago SGI-USA Culture Center


What happened?

Ethan banned me from the SGI Center on August 28, 2013. I arrived around 12:30, started to chant in the Round Room, and after about 10 minutes Ethan taps me on the shoulder. I follow him to a point about 10 feet or so from the Round Room's entrance. After Ethan asked how I was (and I said I was okay), he told me the Center is only for SGI members. I added, "And guests?"

He said, "Not for guests who diss the organization and blog about it."

I replied, "So...we're not going to have a discussion meeting or a dialogue about this?"

He said, "We've already done that."

Me: "That was one time weeks ago for scarcely 10 minutes and I did most of the talking." And that brief meeting was before I'd sent him e-mails asking a variety of questions. He didn't respond to any of them or respond to my invitation for a one-on-one dialogue.

And then I started to leave but added, "You should be ashamed of yourself." When he said, "I'm not," I said, "You should be."

After he said something like have-a-nice-day, I said, "I hope you enjoy your epic failure." And I left. I hope he got that point about "epic failure," which perfectly describes the decline of this layman's Buddhist movement. Back in the mid-seventies, SGI boasted of having 12 million members - 10M in Japan and 2M elsewhere. Today, they "boast" of exactly the same numbers.


"We've just got 20 years to go."

Back in the seventies, we SGI members used to sing the "Shakubuku Fight Song," which included these lyrics:


Do your Gongyo early in the morning.
Daimoku late at night.
Going to follow President Ikeda.
Make this planet peaceful and bright.
Shakubuku is the way to Kosen-rufu.
Twenty years and we'll see Kosen-rufu.
Keep chanting! Keep chanting! 
We've got just twenty years to go.

Ahem, we've just got 20 years to go? That was the assertion based on our confidence that we would be successful based on the Rule of Thirds. If we could get one-third of the world's population to chant (and that was supposed to be a slam dunk), that would mean another third would support us but not chant themselves, and the remaining third wouldn't support us but they wouldn't oppose us either. Well, guess what, Ethan. A lot more than 20 years have gone by (more than 35 years in fact) and SGI isn't in ascendancy; it's in precipitous decline. But I suppose as long as the SGI continues to pay your salary, you needn't concern yourself about such things.



My deal with Ethan

I had kept up my end of the deal I'd made with Ethan about a month ago, when he first told me he was contemplating barring me from the Center. I didn't speak to anybody on the Center's premises about how I practice or my particular interpretations of Buddhist doctrine. I was respectful of Ethan's territory.

But he decided to extend his authority to my outside activities - that is, to what I put on my blog. That's my territory and my business. But what bothered me the most was his initial attempt to lie to me. His first shot was, "The Center is only for members." I knew full well it's also for guests and the receptionist doesn't check the status of anybody who walks through the Center's doors. But obviously he thought a lie would simplify matters and I'd be gone. Ethan didn't think I'd question his claim. I ask a lot of questions, to which the Ethans of the world must ultimately fall silent.

About that member of 40 years and Nichiren's alleged Buddhahood

About 10 years ago, I went to my SGI district meeting, being the first to arrive. I asked Mrs. Oishi, a member of 40 years or so, if she'd ever read the Lotus Sutra. She told me she'd read excerpts in the SGI organ publications but had never read it in its entirety. She found it too daunting. Now this is a woman who told me she gets up a 5 AM everyday and chants four hours of daimoku. When I told Ethan about this, I said, "It would have been better if she'd chanted only 3 hours of daimoku, and dedicated that fourth hour to an recitation of the Lotus Sutra." He didn't respond to that, but I suppose he thought my comment heretical, since reading aloud from the Lotus isn't a practice SGI recognizes.

And something else Ethan Gelbaum didn't respond to: I asked him, about a month ago, if he could cite any scriptural source in which Nichiren claimed he was a Buddha. He turned to his assistant, Marty, and asked him to send me an email response to that. I will now quote Marty's email and a portion of an email I made in response:


QUOTE:


I hope all is well with you. From our previous discussion here is a reference for your inquiry.

Question: In the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin (WND), where does he reveals his identity as the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law ?

Answer: In the Opening of the Eyes WND-Vol. 1 (One of the 5 major treatises of Nichiren Daishonin). This treatise clarifies Nichiren’s identity as the true Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law. He reveals “casting off the transient and revealing the true”, post Tatsunokuchi Persecution.

If you want further background on intent of the Opening of the Eyes, please read Actions of the Votary of the Lotus Sutra (WND- Vol. 1). Moreover, another writing to read would be The Unanimous Declaration By The Buddhas (WND-Vol. 2).

:UNQUOTE.


QUOTE:


After reading your response, I sense a difference of styles between our approaches to answering questions. Basically, what you did was throw a library at me, saying (in effect): "Here are sources you can investigate, so go ahead and find that needle in the haystack."

By my last comment, I mean, "For instance, the Opening of the Eyes (which I had read over 15 years ago) is a very long gosho, though perhaps somewhere in there Nichiren is claiming he's a Buddha. I can't, however, remember having read any such claim within its many pages." It would have been far more helpful if you'd quoted at least one decisive and key passage wherein Nichiren makes this claim rather than burdening your reader (me) with having to sift through a lot of background material that (really) doesn't make the point.

I, on the other hand, will provide quotes from Nichiren which cast grave doubts on any claims of his being a Buddha:

ONE:  "Why did I first begin to chant as I do? Bodhisattva Jogyo is the one destined to make his advent in this world to propagate the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. But before he had even appeared, I began, as though speaking in a dream, hardly knowing what I was doing, to chant the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, and so I chant them now. In the end, is this a good thing I do, or a bad thing? I do not know, nor can anyone else tell for certain." - Letter to Myomitsu Shonin.

The two areas I highlighted are hardly the words a Buddha would be speaking.

TWO:  "...but since I am a common mortal, it is beyond my power to know the past. There is no doubt, however, that in my present life I am the votary of the Lotus Sutra, and that in the future, I will therefore reach the seat of enlightenment without fail."

"I cannot hold back my tears when I think of the great persecution confronting me now, or when I think of the joy of attaining Buddhahood in the future."

These two quotes appear on page 386 of the True Aspect of All Phenomena and show that Nichiren, even after he started chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, had not yet attained Buddhahood. Instead, he speaks of doing so "in the future."

:UNQUOTE.

Not only did I send this email to Marty, but I also copied it to Ethan Gelbaum. Neither of these two gentlemen offered any further defense of their belief that Nichiren is a Buddha. If they can't even defend this critical assertion, that speaks volumes of not only their competence but the truth of this assertion.


In closing

I'm not at all surprised at Ethan or the SGI for that matter. I chose to interact with Ethan as I did, fully expecting his cowardly response. I hadn't even considered setting foot in the SGI Center until an SGI friend, whom I shakubuku'd 13 years ago, suggested we meet there. The rest, as they say, is history. Frankly? I had written off the SGI years ago as a failed enterprise hardly worth my time to engage. But for old times sake, I decided I'd try one more time to appeal to their sense of mission and to their commonsense. Having failed in that, I now move on in my own Buddhist practice in terms of trying to reach current and former SGI members with my blog posts. And, of course, in continuing to (as Shakyamuni Buddha urged) to "read, recite, ponder, and teach to the best of my ability the Lotus Sutra."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, Just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus

Pending USA response to Syrian chemical attack

It looks like the USA is contemplating a 2 day limited military response to the recent chemical attack in Syria it blames on the Assad regime. It also looks like the USA will not bother to get UN support in the form of a resolution on this; nor will the Obama regime deign to ask Congress for  declaration of war, albeit a "limited" war.

I was so outraged by Secretary of State John Kerry's responses that I wish to precede his quoted comments below with my own comments based on the three yellow-highlighted phrases below.

Kerry speaks of "moral obscenity," "inexcusable [attack on civilians]," and his "very personal" response to videos he'd seen of this attack. Mr. Kerry would do well to remember that the USA itself was the first to use nuclear weapons in war as a terrorist tactic. [Here, I'll say it in a more direct way: "The USA was the world's first nuclear terrorist."] We had no problem bombing Nagasaki, killing between 60-80,000 people (almost all civilians) a mere three days after bombing Hiroshima. Nagasaki had next to nothing in the way of a military presence stationed there and its potential contribution to the war effort was entirely negated by the US Navy, which ensured that none of its materiel could ever leave Japan to support its overseas war effort.

And here's the kicker: The USA didn't bomb these two cities to terrorize the Japanese, but instead to try to throw the fear of God into the Russians whom it saw as their only potential rival as a budding superpower.

So when Kerry speaks of "moral obscenity," I urge him to compare the (possibly) 1,300 killed in the Syrian attack to the (at least) 60,000 killed in Nagasaki. If Kerry wants to see (as he put it) "gut-wrenching" videos, I suggest he review footage of the Nagasaki victims. What really burns me is, there was a time when Kerry at least pretended to be anti-war or at least to have had a conscience about the byproducts of war. But it seems that marrying into money and becoming a part of the oligarchic system really turned his head. Too bad. I have nothing but contempt for this man.

Now for those quotes:

QUOTE [from article posted on YahooNews! on 8/26/13]:

Secretary of State John Kerry left no doubt Monday that the United States believes Syria’s Bashar Assad used chemical weapons to slaughter civilians last week and vowed that the United States will respond to that “moral obscenity.”

“Anyone who can claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass,” he said, in a barb likely meant for Syria and its patron Russia. “By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable."

Kerry, speaking to reporters at the State Department, spoke of the attack in very personal terms, describing how he had watched the “gut-wrenching” videos of the dead and dying via social media.

:UNQUOTE.



QUOTE [see NOTE 1 below]:

"We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons." And is Kerry equally confident that somehow the rebels themselves don't have any such armaments, either from Assad's stockpiles or from (say) Saudi Arabia? What about the possibility that USA agents in Syria obtained some of these weapons and are responsible for this attack?

I'm at a loss to figure out why Assad, who is clearly beating the rebels and surely wouldn't want to cross any US red lines, would intentionally kill civilians. Unless, and this is a stretch, his intel determined that there was such a large number of rebels holed up (using their proximity to civilians as a human shield tactic) that he wanted to not only be rid of these rebels, but also to send them a message, "Give up the human shield tactic, for we'll use chemicals on any large numbers of rebels we find while considering, much as the USA would, any resulting civilian deaths to be collateral damage."

As a side note, I was intrigued by video footage showing a "victim" of this chemical attack being tended to by a doctor. This doctor was busy massaging the "victim's" knees even though he was undergoing spasms. Strange, indeed.

Me thinks Kerry better stop snorting that ketchup he's become so addicted to. His posturing self-righteousness is an act that grew old a long time ago.

:UNQUOTE.

In my personal opinion

I don't believe the uprising against Assad happened without substantial clandestine support by the USA for many years, possibly decades. Same as in Libya. Events like these don't just happen. However, I do believe the USA was surprised that Assad's regime proved to be a lot more tenacious than at first estimated. Perhaps the USA was hoping Assad's army, which has a sizable enlisted makeup of Sunni soldiers, would rise up in opposition to Assad's Alewite/Shia command structure. Perhaps those Sunni soldiers are fighting to have a country not dominated by Sunni militant extremists. So...we guessed wrong: Not all Sunnis are created equal.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for USA President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"There's a special place in hell waiting for John Kerry - right next to that place waiting for Barack 'change-you-can-believe-in' Obama" - Steven Searle.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

NOTE 1: This quote is my response posted to an article posted on YahooNews!, but not to the same article referenced in my first quote.

Follow up on Killing of Jesus Mora Flores

On June 25, 2012, I posted on the killing of Jesus Mora Flores, a post you can read via this link:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/06/devils-advocate-for-jesus-mora-flores.html

Since I so rarely receive comments from anybody on any of my posts, I couldn't resist replying to two (or one, posting twice?) who recently offered their thoughts. I replied to their replies on my original post, but I decided to quote my reply in its entirety here, as a separate post, hoping for increased readership on what I consider the strong possibility of a miscarriage of justice. My comment follows:

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm a bit confused by the fact that a second commentator calling him/herself "Anonymous" posted today after the first "Anonymous" posted on Aug. 17. I have to assume these are two different people, though (in either case) the second "Anonymous" should have been sharp enough to see how people might be confused and would have said either "I am not (or I am) the same 'Anonymous' who posted on Aug. 17."

That being said, I will reply to today's "Anonymous" first. You, sir/madam, are an idiot and I wish you wouldn't have "graced" my blog with your miserable four word reply ["you make me laugh"], which really added nothing to the dialogue. If you want to be an idiot, please...post on Yahoo News or any of the hundreds of other sites that are polluted by others similar to you.

As for the first "Anonymous," I just now google-searched to see if there has been any updated story about this killing. And, sure enough, there wasn't, which is something I fault our lame-stream media for - a thing called "failing to update or follow-through."

The original news stories said that an autopsy was scheduled to be completed on Jesus "in a couple of weeks." As I wrote in my original story, I was hoping that autopsy would have addressed my suspicion that dad didn't, as he claimed, beat Jesus to death with his fists - that instead he ran up behind him and planted a flying kick to the back of his head.  And I further suspect the daughter (alleged victim of attempted rape) was nowhere near the scene in which it's possible Jesus was held down while the fatal kick was delivered.

I also would like to know what kind of questions the authorities asked the five-year-old "victim." Surely those could have been revealed while keeping her identity secret.

There's way too much about this story that doesn't make sense. But I am glad to report this much - much to my delight, I noticed I've received an extraordinary number of hits on this post. And, who knows? Maybe that might somehow serve to pry loose the truth. But even if it doesn't, as a Buddhist I know that karma will punish/reward all of the parties involved.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractor's Party

"Yes, I believe every life is worthy, even that of one - like Jesus - who was so 'obviously' guilty that no one thought to consider that he himself was the victim in this case."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

TO: SGI (Part I)

Introduction

Today's post (see text below) is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International. Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology. I call this post "Part I," fully expecting that I will post other parts - again, primarily directed to people familiar with the SGI.

This link will connect you to the homepage of my Lotus Sutra Champions blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this new site:

http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html

SUBJECT: Why bother to do gongyo at all?

On August 7, I had a brief meeting with Ethan Gelbaum, Regional Director of SGI-USA who works out of the Chicago SGI Community Center, and his assistant Marty. During that meeting I asked, in words to this effect:

Paraphrase begins:

Since Nichiren claimed that chanting one daimoku is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once, why bother to do gongyo at all, since that consists of reciting only chapters 2 and 16 of the Lotus Sutra? The time spent chanting gongyo would be better spent chanting more daimoku, if indeed chanting one daimoku is equal to one reading of the entire Lotus Sutra.

:Paraphrase ends.

Ethan responded by saying, one purpose of chanting gongyo is to praise those chapters, which are considered in the SGI's view to be the essence of the 28-chapter Lotus Sutra. But another purpose is to refute those chapters, in favor of the superiority of the daimoku to which the Lotus Sutra must be considered secondary in importance. Besides, we follow the example of Nichiren who himself, on a daily basis, chanted daimoku (while stressing its superiority)  and gongyo. We follow his example.

I didn't refute Ethan on the spot, since his response was something I didn't expect. The version I was familiar with, last heard by me maybe 10 years ago, is that chanting daimoku is the primary practice and chanting gongyo is the secondary practice. And each of these practices supports the other. I would like to know who came up with this revised answer (and when), which introduces praising and refuting. Obviously, the powers-that-be must have found the original version somehow unsatisfactory.

My refutation

Ethan, as well as SGI, makes the mistake of considering the Lotus Sutra to be Shakyamuni's Buddhism. However, as the Lotus itself makes clear* - "Manjushri, this Lotus Sutra is foremost among all that is preached by the thus come ones. Among all that is preached it is the most profound." That means all Buddhas stand united behind the Lotus Sutra which declares that reciting the Lotus, and not just its title as reflected in the daimoku, is the more superior of these two practices. In fact, the Lotus doesn't mention the daimoku at all, though Nichiren believed it was implied in its text. For my taste, this implication is so subtle as to be unnoticeable, which is also true of Nichiren's claim that the Lotus's 16th chapter implies the validity of the gohonzon.

Think about what you're doing when you chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - you're repeating, over and over again, "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra." Nam means devotion, and Myoho Renge Kyo is the title of the Lotus Sutra in Japanese. Some people might quibble that nam doesn't mean "I devote myself to," that instead it simply means "devotion." However, if you're the one sitting in front of the gohonzon chanting copious amounts of daimoku, it stands to reason that, indeed, you are devoting yourself to the Lotus Sutra. Or at least you're devoting yourself to saying that you are.

By refusing to embrace the practice of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra and by insisting instead that chanting daimoku is the equivalent of doing so, the SGI is in effect abandoning the Lotus Sutra. The daimoku by itself is meaningless if the SGI-supported translation of the daimoku's words is embraced without the context of the entire Lotus Sutra. If you look at the translation, after this paragraph, you'll see that the daimoku fails to make sense with the word myoho. What does the concept "mystic law" mean, without the Lotus which defines and makes clear the meaning of that law? The other three words of the daimoku make sense - everybody knows what is meant by devotion; and the concepts of "simultaneity of cause and effect" and "harmonious vibration" are quickly and easily learned. But the word myoho is where the daimoku fails due to being inherently vague, since it needs the Lotus Sutra's text to provide the critical context.

Nam means "devotion;"

Myoho means "mystic law;"

Renge means "simultaneity of cause and effect;"

Kyo means "sutra" or "harmonious sound."

When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant as praise for the Lotus Sutra (or, more specifically, to its 2nd and 16th chapters), wouldn't chanting daimoku only be sufficient praise? When you chant "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra"- again, that's one of the translations of the daimoku as explained above - aren't you already praising the Lotus? So why should an additional, different kind of praise be necessary? Especially since that "different kind" consists of chanting the 2nd and 16th chapters of the Lotus in ancient Chinese - which makes it incomprehensible to the modern chanter. How does chanting words you don't understand suffice as praise?

When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant to refute the Lotus Sutra as a provisional teaching which is inferior to the daimoku, what are we refuting? We are being asked to believe that the daimoku (promoted by Nichiren, who is not a Buddha as explained below) is superior to the Lotus Sutra (promoted by all the Buddhas of the universe). Such a belief is simply indefensible.

I will now cite two sources for my belief that Nichiren is not a Buddha, even though the SGI calls him the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law:

QUOTE:

ONE:  "Why did I first begin to chant as I do? Bodhisattva Jogyo is the one destined to make his advent in this world to propagate the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. But before he had even appeared, I began, as though speaking in a dream, hardly knowing what I was doing, to chant the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, and so I chant them now. In the end, is this a good thing I do, or a bad thing? I do not know, nor can anyone else tell for certain." - Letter to Myomitsu Shonin.

The two areas I highlighted are hardly the words a Buddha would be speaking.

TWO:  "...but since I am a common mortal, it is beyond my power to know the past. There is no doubt, however, that in my present life I am the votary of the Lotus Sutra, and that in the future I will therefore reach the seat of enlightenment without fail."

"I cannot hold back my tears when I think of the great persecution confronting me now, or when I think of the joy of attaining Buddhahood in the future."

These two quotes appear on page 386 of The True Aspect of All Phenomena and show that Nichiren, even after he started chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, had not yet attained Buddhahood. Instead, he speaks of doing so "in the future."

:UNQUOTE.

Ethan states that we should practice as Nichiren did (even though, as I pointed out, Nichiren is not a Budda). However, even if Nichiren himself said (which I doubt) that we should copy his practice, he might have only said so expecting us to refute him - or at least hoping we'd do so. This link to my essay "Why did the buddha lie to us?" explains the basis for any such hope Nichiren, in emulation of Shakyamuni Buddha, might have entertained:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html

Why gongyo was shortened but not abandoned

I can think of a very practical reason why the practice of chanting gongyo is still embraced by the SGI. Simply put, new members are given something to do. If the only chanting practice consisted of daimoku, new members might get bored and quit the SGI. It is important to give a new member a challenging project such as learning how to chant a rapid and precise gongyo. That would appeal to their work ethic and become a source of pride after gongyo is mastered.

Over ten years ago, SGI realized that doing gongyo in its original format had proven to be burdensome to newer members. Especially considering that parts A and C were accompanied by a single recitation of part B in the morning - a very lengthy part B that consisted of the complete version of the 16th chapter, compared to part C which was only an abbreviated version. In the old days, we used to chant in the morning parts A and C four times and one more time including part B. In the evening, we chanted parts A and C three times.

These days, morning and evening gongyo consist of a single chanting of parts A and C, which is far more quickly done enabling members to chant more daimoku should they desire. Still, logically speaking, I find the SGI lacking in the courage of its convictions by not doing away with gongyo altogether. Since the chanting of one daimoku contains the entire Lotus Sutra - or so SGI claims - then clinging to the practice of gongyo is indefensible. Moreover, it becomes just one more attachment which, after all is said and done, should be eliminated as we proceed down the path of enlightenment.

More on my meeting with Ethan and Marty

Our one and only meeting (on Aug. 7) was brief, primarily concerning itself with whether Ethan would invoke his authority to bar me from ever again entering the SGI's Chicago Community Center. My sin? Having insisted that reciting the entire Lotus Sutra is a practice superior to chanting daimoku, since in the Lotus Sutra itself, the most profound teaching of all the Buddhas, is a statement defining the most ideal practice as consisting of "reading, reciting and pondering the Lotus Sutra and teaching it to the best of your ability."

My greater sin? While in the Community Center, expounding my belief to SGI members concerning the inferiority of chanting daimoku. On July 31, I met two SGI members so we could try the practice of reading aloud from the Lotus Sutra. Via a series of emails to these two members, we decided to take turns reading a brief section of our choosing followed by comments. Each was supposed to take 5 minutes or so for his turn, but I urged that we not do this in the Center itself. I suggested we sit in Joan's** car, parked in the SGI parking lot, and try this exercise there. I thought it prudent to avoid letting others overhear us while engaged in this unorthodox "chanting."

Unfortunately, I chose the wrong time to go to the men's room. Marty, an assistant of Ethan's who knew Joan**, struck up a conversation in my absence and she told him what we were up to. He said, "You don't have to sit in your car. Why don't you let me unlock one of our private conference rooms for you?" But this room access had a price. Marty and a Women's Division leader who unexpectedly appeared asked if they could sit in on our session. I thought the session was very successful but apparently one or both of these leaders reported us to Ethan. So when I showed up on August 7 in order to chant daimoku, without either of my two SGI friends present, Ethan and Marty were waiting for me.

I will write another post with more details concerning my meeting with Ethan and Marty. But for now, I'll close this post. I will also soon be writing about how former and current members of the SGI should go about setting up a virtual samgha.

More, later.


Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

NOTES

clear* - The quote that follows clear* is from page 246 of the Burton Watson translation, published in 2009 by the SGI, of The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. It's in the Peaceful Practices chapter (ch 14) of the Lotus Sutra.

** I use the name Joan since I'm sure my SGI friend won't want her name made public on this blog.

"The Act of Killing" - reflections on a movie

Introduction

Toward the end of this post, I will comment on a recent movie I'd seen - a masterpiece called The Act of Killing - which focused on the motivations and emotions of death squad killers responsible for the mass murder of 1,000,000 alleged and unarmed members of the Communist Party in Indonesia in 1965. These crimes against humanity were never prosecuted at the international level nor even investigated - then or since - by Indonesian authorities.

As I watched this film, I noticed that there was only one (indirect) reference to Islam, which is relevant since Indonesia was then and is now predominantly Sunni Muslim. I will begin my essay with a comment on one incident in early Islamic history which, I believe, had a ripple effect concerning the acceptability of violence among Muslims. I will refer to that one incident as I compare it to my personal experience with Buddhists.

Here's a link to The Act of Killing's movie trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhIRBxbchU


The Origin of Violence in Islamic Culture

I'm going to make a bold assertion here, though it's one I feel is an inescapable conclusion:

Since the Prophet Muhammad was violently introduced to the Quran - at the very beginning - it seems reasonable to suppose that such a violent origin could be expected to have a ripple effect throughout its history.

The following quote, which embraces a narrative supported by Sunni Muslims, illustrates my point:

QUOTE*:

He used to go in seclusion in the Cave of Hira', where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again, till suddenly the truth descended upon him while he was in the Cave of Hira'.

The angel came to him and asked [I've read other accounts that say the angel didn't "ask," but instead "ordered"] him to read. The Prophet replied 'I do not know how to read'. The Prophet added, 'The angel caught me (forcibly) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, "I do not know how to read". Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read, but again I replied, "I do not know how to read" (or what shall I read?). Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said: "Read, in the name of Your Lord, who created, created man from a clot. Read! And Your Lord is the most bountiful" ... [Bukhari, I, No. 3; VI, No. 478; Muslim I, No. 301.]

The narration goes on to tell us that the Prophet went back to his wife Khadija and recounted to her his dreadful experience...

:UNQUOTE*.

So that's how Muhammad was introduced to Islam - with a violence sufficient to induce a distress great enough for him to contemplate suicide, a claim which is supported by similar narratives I've read. It's interesting that one who claims go be the last prophet and messenger of God is the only one to have been terrorized into submission.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the angel in question - Gabriel - didn't simply use these words instead: "In the name of Allah, recite [or repeat] after me." Today, we understand that when the word "read" was used, Gabriel meant "read aloud." But even that doesn't make much sense unless there was a written document on hand from which Muhammad was supposed to read. And for Gabriel to be unaware that Muhammad was illiterate seems unbelievable in and of itself.

Disclaimer: Before any Muslims reading this consider getting upset at me for pointing out these few obvious points, I want you to know that I am a believer who is even more severe with his own faith - which happens to be Buddhism.


By way of comparison: Buddhism v. Islam

I can' speak for all Buddhists, but it's fairly safe to say their forays into violent behavior are few and far between. The only incidents I can think of took place in Sri Lanka and Myannmar, and these were inspired by tribalistic loyalty playing itself out against Hindu/Muslim minorities. However, it might be more enlightening for me to share with you the experience of my personal introduction to a Buddhist sect.

Back in 1975, I was approached by friends of mine who had themselves just recently joined one of the Nichiren sects calling itself Nichiren Shoshu of America (now called SGI - Soka Gakkai of America). These friends had been approached by street preachers who were fairly recent converts themselves. I had always maintained a healthy agnosticism throughout my life, so I liked the way NSA pitched its faith to me:

"We don't ask that you believe, just that you try its practices for 100 days as an experiment. Those practices consist of chanting twice per day for a total of 40 minutes; chant for whatever you want. That's how we ourselves judge the truth of this faith, based on the results we get when we chant. We believe in the Law of Karma, which means this faith is based on cause and effect. If you put out the cause of chanting, you will get the resulting benefits in your life which are the direct results of your practice.

"We also ask that you attend Buddhist discussion meetings once per week and make a modest attempt to learn some of the core concepts. After 100 days, if you're not satisfied with the results you receive, then go ahead and quit - for you'd be a fool to continue without some sign satisfactory to you personally that these practices are valid. If you go to work, you expect to be paid. Same here: The work you do is the effect you put out to consistently practice, and you should expect to get 'paid' for this."

After my 100 days was over, I saw enough results to continue my practice. However, flash forward to today: I am no longer a member of this sect since my in-depth study of its core scripture - The Lotus Sutra - led me to the conclusion that NSA/SGI was practicing in a manner inconsistent with the Buddha's instructions. When I quit, I wasn't beheaded or even shunned. I wasn't told I'd be going to hell for forsaking this sect, only that they hoped I would see the light and return to the fold. Of course, I am hoping they will see the light (or at least the light as I see it), but I know how hard it is for people to break with a tradition they've kept for (in some cases) decades.


The Act of Killing

The Act of Killing is brilliant in its casual, laid back approach, which allowed mass murderers to be treated as people with their own story to tell. It isn't judgmental; it simply unfolds and draws you in. There are scenes which are difficult to look at, which is surprising given that make-up and props are all that's being viewed rather than real blood and guts. That disconnect gives this film its surreal quality. This quote from Wikipedia introduces us to the film's backdrop:

QUOTE**:

When Sukarno was overthrown by Suharto following the failed coup of the 30 September Movement in 1965, the gangsters Anwar Congo and Adi Zulkadry in Medan (North Sumatra) were promoted from selling black market movie theatre tickets to leaders of the most notorious death squad in North Sumata, as part of the Indonesian killings of 1965-1966. They also extorted ethnic Chinese, killing those who refused to pay. Anwar personally killed approximately 1,000 people, usually by strangling with wire.

Today, Anwar is revered as a founding father of the right-wing paramilitary organization Pemuda Pancasila that grew out of the death squads. The organization is so powerful that its leaders include government ministers, and they are happy to boast about everything from corruption and election rigging to genocide. ...

Invited by Oppenheimer, Anwar and his friends eagerly re-enact the killings for the cameras, and make dramatic scenes depicting their memories and feelings about the killings. The scenes are produced in the style of their favorite film genres: gangster, western, and musical. Various aspects of Anwar and his friends' filmmaking process are shown, but as they begin to dramatize Anwar's own nightmares, the fiction scenes begin to take over the film's form, leading the film to become increasingly surreal and nightmarish. Oppenheimer has called the result "a documentary of the imagination."

:UNQUOTE**.

At first, I was surprised by Oppenheimer's restraint. He barely inserts his own views or questions into the film itself, doing so only once to my recollection. He doesn't give his subjects the third degree or even inquire as to whether they were or are now religious. He doesn't even mention Islam by name, though there's one scene in the movie where the killers are reenacting a brutal interrogation scene but stop when one of them mentions that he can hear (outside in the street) the "call to prayer." At that point, the four reenacters simply pause and bow their heads. I don't know if they were praying or not, since it looked more to me like an embarrassed silence.

The film had lengthy scenes when it was a film within a film or took us behind the scenes showing us what the sets and props looked like and the directorial discussion taking place among these former mass murderers. What struck me in particular was the total impunity with which these killers acted and how laughingly boastful they were of what they had done. Not only that, by all appearances the  vast majority of the Indonesian nation support even to this day what had been extralegal murders.

There's one scene in which a Chinese shopkeeper is being extorted for money in order to help finance a pep rally of Pemuda Pancasila  And this wasn't a reenactment of something that happened almost 50 years ago. This took place as the documentary was being filmed. And it was obvious that this particular extortion was for an amount above and beyond the usual monthly protection money demanded of this poor man.

Of course such a scene couldn't be used as evidence against the extortionist, since it was plainly obvious that no Indonesian court would even consider hearing such a case.

Several times during the film Anwar defines what he is - a gangster - in terms of being a "free man." Apparently, there's a Dutch word that allows such a liberal translation. However, I would point out, "But the fact is, you were and are in a gang which, by more commonly accepted definitions, is a group that operates outside the law. You might be free, but only from the restrains imposed by society and because your gang was supported by the military - as well as the Western democracies."

I don't know how Oppenheimer did it, but somehow he got Anwar to act the part of a Communist who was being brutally interrogated in a newspaper editor's office. That seemed to give Anwar pause as he then felt (though only as an actor) what it was like to have one's dignity assaulted. I also don't know how the filmmaker got one of the killers to dress up in drag for a particularly brutal scene.

Anwar admits to atrocities such as shoving wooden splinters up the anuses of his hapless victims. However, I was hard put to see how such extremes could be justified in the minds of the most fanatical "patriot." Instead of massacring unarmed people who posed no threat to the established order, the authorities could have simply misused the judicial system to dispossess or otherwise harass this minority. The excessive cruelty wasn't necessary from a Machiavellian point of view; the Communists could have been neutralized far more simply, effectively, and humanely - starting with a ban on their political party, which was legally in existence at the time.


Reflections on Indonesia

I admit that a rather macabre impulse made me look up the lyrics to the Indonesian national anthem, entitled Great Indonesia:

QUOTE***:


Indonesia, my homeland
The land where I shed my blood
Right there, I stand
To be a guide of my motherland
Indonesia, my nationality
My nation and my homeland.
Let us exclaim "Indonesia unites!"
Long live my land, long live my state
My nation, my people, entirely
Let us build its soul, let us build its body
For the Great Indonesia.
[REFRAIN]
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
My land, my country which I love
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
Long live Great Indonesia!
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
My land, my country which I love
Great Indonesia, independent & sovereign!
Long live Great Indonesia!

:UNQUOTE***.

As you can see, there isn't any mention of liberty and justice for all or of reverence for the rule of law. As for "the land where I shed my blood," since Indonesia has always had its military staffed by volunteers and has never seen action except for the local suppression of insurrectionists and separatists, the average citizen never even had a chance to shed his blood. As for "let us build its soul" and "Indonesia unites," those are tacit admissions that true national unity has evaded Indonesia to date.

As for Indonesia being "great," I fail to see it. True greatness lies in the rule of law instead of allowing the continued existence of paramilitary organizations. It lies in protecting the weak and minorities. It lies in abhorrence of corruption. It lies in security forces which don't look the other way when gangsters engage in political and ethnic cleansings.

Two reasons the West isn't worried about Indonesia being Islamic: It's not militantly Islamic and, being a collection of islands, they're not in a position to threaten their neighbors. However, if China should ever decide it wants to exert its naval power in its neighborhood, Indonesia might end up praying the USA comes to its rescue. And if the USA isn't so inclined, well...the ironic result could be payback for those massacres of Chinese and communists nearly half a century ago.


The Act of Killing - post script

It's tragic that so few people will end up seeing this movie, which cost only $1M to make. According to IMDb, on its fourth weekend it grossed $38,537 after being shown on 26 screens in the USA...(sigh). Say, I wonder what the Kardashians are up to?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Footnotes:

 * www.missionislam.com/quran/beginrevelation.htm

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Killing

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_Raya

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com