BY WAGONS AND SHIPS ISRAEL YIELDS TO DEVINE REPLANTING

Today, most educated people look to science for guidance. Scientific theories are written on stone, taught in schools by their disciples, eventually found wanting, the sacred stones broken, and replaced by new scientific theories written on stone and taught by their disciples.

Personally, I am not opposed to science. I am opposed to idolatry. I define idolatry according to the Israelitish-Christian tradition, as best indicated from careful gleaning from unBowdlerized Holy Scripture. The Most High of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Shem and Abram, whose name was changed according to the will of the Most High to Abraham, is all. There is no other, according to my way of thinking. The entirety of Holy Scriptures from the twelfth chapter of Genesis forward is the unfolding relationship between the Most High and Abraham and the destiny of Abraham’s Seed of the Promise. This Covenant People were singled out as the special agents, or protagonists, in the astonishingly complex drama He willed into being for reasons that will never be fully revealed until the Great Reconciliation occurs in the Kingdom to come. This being so, it is hardly surprising that these people were called a “nation of priests,” as they were destined to bring the Law of the Most High to foreign lands. These were Children of the Promise. In the Holy Scriptures only the Seed of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob were so-called. The Holy Scriptures only uses the term “called out” to serve Him in conjunction with Israelites. In Egypt Jacob-Israel, on his deathbed, anoited the sons of Joseph as his “first-born” unto whom the Promises and Inheritance should descend. Ephraim and Manasseh became the dominant Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Their seed would inherit the Promises and Inheritance, according to the special significance that these words held for Abraham. Isaac and Jacob.

When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, they were accompanied by a “mixed multitude” which behaved as ”thornes” and “nettles” toward the Israelites. The Most High warned Israel against “diversity,” as it would lead to a loss of faith and personal corruption. Israel never acquiesced to the wisdom of the Most High. The main thrust seemed to be that it was permissible for “strangers” to live amid the Israelites, if they acknowledged the Most High of Israel and served according to His Laws.

Whatever the reason for originally accepting strangers, and being outnumbered may have been an element, the strangers rarely gave more than lip service to Israel’s God, while privately serving their own gods. The pattern more often than not was corruption and Baal-worship entering the congregation of Israel. Prophets are frequently recorded inveighing against Israel’s “whoredoms” [associating with strange gods]. Their words usually commanded few ears. The typical “Christian” today would reference them as “crackpots.” It is likely that the Israelites in those days of God-fearing prophets used similar terminology. Nothing much changes. In God’s time there should br no change, as it is always now. In human time one has reason to suppose that the Most High expects some progress in “walking in ways pleasing to Him.”

Hence, it is hardly surprising to read in newspapers that 70% of American “Christians” believe that one can be “saved” by taking “paths” other than that which is stated in Holy Scriptures by the Messiah of Israel Himself. This is a corrupt and vain people whose “shepherds” may be incompetent – or even evil.

Nevertheless, in the time of Moses a great host of Israelites migrated to the “Land of Milk and Honey.” One suspects that climatic conditions were more favorable in those days. The lands of the twelve tribes were apportioned. One notes that the Most High of Israel favored borders as a defining and orderly condition for settlement. It is interesting that all enemies of borders are also anti-Scripture (or they perversely interpret inconvenient Scriptural text). This includes some large religious organizations originally founded by people of faith in those same Scriptures.

Therefore, the Israelites settled in their new lands and became dominant under Saul-David-Solomon. There were plenty of enemies to overcome. The soft-hearted kings of Israel, no doubt generally reflecting the people, refused frequently to punish the wicked. [In those days unGodly acts were considered wicked, unlike today, where the only recognized evils are assertions deemed "racist" and/or "denying the 'Holocaust.'" For such "crimes" a "scarlet letter" must be worn, alerting all that a sinner is present.]

It is in the time following the Judges of Israel, when David became king, as recorded in II Samuel 7:10, that the prophet Nathan told the Israelites that they would be planted in another land, which would become their own - one that they presently had no knowledge about – and that they would be established and move no more. As they were already in the Land of Milk and Honey, this prophecy cannot be about this land. Further, the Israelite population was booming. Clearly, they would outgrow this “first dwelling place.” The Most High had in mind a distant land, which was great in size and rich in the good things both on land and sea. One day they would find their resting place there, under the banners of Ephraim and Manasseh, as well as being joined by the other regathered tribes. Out of many, they would become one. There would be no king but Jahshua, known generally in the West as Jesus.

Under King David and King Solomon the realm of the Israelites expanded greatly, including parts of Egypt, Arabia, Babylon and into the borders of modern-day Turkey. The jurisdiction of these Israelite kings included the floodplains of the Euphrates River. Had they been Romans, they might have built aquaducts from the Euphrates River to the Land of Milk and Honey. The main point here is to establish that the Israelites were not absolute strangers to these lands. There were commerce and state relationships that made for familiarity. Further, as the Northern Kingdom was closer to these lands than the Southern Kingdom, they may have had closer relationships over time. Among the baleful results was most probably some variety of Baal-worship, which seemed at one with the noteworthy corruption inveighed against by the Most High’s prophets to this House.

There may have been colonies of Israelites from the Northern Kingdom long-scattered about during Israel’s expansion under King David. Growing populations and growing trade between Israel and the lands to the north and east may have been factors. Also, as with Egypt, the House of Israel’s growing colonial population and its success may have been factors in their annihilation and subsequent bondage. They may have seemed too rich. That might lead to burdensome demands for tribute from Assyria which was resisted, leading to their defeat and bondage. [This may startle Americans who are accustomed to seeing burdensome tribute placed on the poor.]

That the House of Israel may have had good knowledge of Assyrian lands and even knowledge of the lands beyond the Black Sea, Caucasian Mountains, and Caspian Sea is herein being proposed. Please recall that the Tribe of Dan was a seafaring people. Zebulon and Asher are also described in Holy Scripture as seafaring. Naphtali and Gad may also have had ships at sea. Yet, Dan is especially interesting. The lands of Dan were split into a northern and southern group. The northern group is closest of all the Tribes to the route of the Assyrian invaders. Yet, on the stone tablet ordered by the Assyrian king to number the people conquered, there is no listing of the Tribe of Dan. All the others were listed, including 200,000 from the outlying cities of Judah. It is possible that the Danites in these lands were listed under Naphtali or Asher. It is also possible that news of the approach of the Assyrian army had reached the Danites of the northern group months before they actually arrived. This allowed the Danites to execute a massive exodus to one or more of their numerous colononies. In fact the Danites may have been Israel’s major “intelligence” tribe, as their far-flung colonies naturally positioned them to be aware of political “goings-on” in the land of their colony. I feel confident that such knowledge was fed back to the Northern Kingdom (and probably the Southern Kingdom as well). As a matter of speculation, the reason that Dan held bifurcated lands – one near the northern tip of the Southern Kingdom and one near the northern tip of the Northern Kingdom – is that they held an unofficial position as “spies/couriers” to these respective Kingdoms. Their “antennae” were far-reaching, as they sailed the “serpent paths” (rivers, and other curving bodies of water).

What wre some of the known and suspected colonies of the Tribe of Dan? Well, consider some known relationships:

1. “The Danites were widespread. Cyprus was called Ia-Dnan: ‘The Island of Dan(an).’ The same people were called Danuna, and under this name they appear as rulers of the Plain of Adana in Cilicia. Greek tradition has their eponymous ancestor, Danaos (Dan), migrating from the Nile delta to Greece. So important was this movement that the Greeks afterward called themselves Danaoi for centuries. Virgil also designated the Greeks as ‘Danai.’ ”            [THE STORY OF CELTO-SAXON ISRAEL, W.H. Bennett, Appendix 7, pages 176-177]

The fact that Israel did migrate from Egypt should be borne in mind. As with Assyria, the Danites may have had plenty of clues to the changing mood in Egypt toward their “guests.” I believe that before the pharaohic hammer fell on Israel, some, if not all, of the danites took to sea for a safer haven. From their experience as seafaring people, they would have a good idea where to go for shelter. If this reasonable scenario is true, then it is only reasonable that the legend of their exodus would gain mythic standing. It would also suggest that this prior experience bode well for the Danites when the word of the approach of the Assyrian armies reached them.

2. “It is an obvious inference that the ancient Irish tuatha de Danaan, who trace their origins to the East, are related to both the Danaan of earely Greece and the Biblical tribe of Dan. It is a known fact that the old word, ‘tuatha,‘ means tribe; ‘tuatha de Danaan’ therefore means, ‘tribe of Dan.’ ”                                                         [THE STORY OF CELTO-SAXON ISRAEL, supra, p,176]

3. “Phoenicia never at any time was a nation under one government, but was merely a geographical designation  for a particular strip of coastal plain along the Eastern Mediterranean. Prof. George Rawlinson remarks: ‘The cities of Phoenicia lived for the most part on friendly terms one with another, but at no time formed a regular confederacy. In the normal condition of things each had its own monarch, who was quite independent of all the rest. On approach, however, of serious danger, the various towns drew together, alliances were formed, and joint armies and navies collected.’…

“Little is known about the Hittites, but what we do know is that their greatest period was contemporaneous to the five-hundred-year period that Israel occupied the land, and to the Golden Age of Phoenicia. Prof. Wassell traces most of the British immigrants of about 1000 B.C. as coming from Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia in the land of the Hittites. The Hittites are spoken of in Scripture quite frequently, and their remains indicate that they possessed a high state of civilization. As the sons of Heth and of Canaan and Noah, they were of course Phoenicians; nut as Waddell also connects the name of Hittite with that of Catti, Gad, and Goth, it is a good guess that it was the Israelites, from 1500 to 1000 B.C. who gave the Hittite civilization the eminence that it held during that time. In fact, the passage quoted from Judges 3:5 states that Israel lived among the Hittites. Those Phoenician Hittites were of course worshippers of Bel, the god of Sun fire, as we have already seen, but Scripture tells us that the Israelites also served these gods and forsook the worship of Jehovah. Hundreds of thousands of Englishmen have come to America, and their descendants are Americans today; so likewise did thousands of Israelites settle in the land of the Hittites and passed as Hittites.”            [TRACING OUR ANCESTORS, Frederick Haberman, pp. 71-72]]

I believe that by this bit of data one can easily come to suspect Establishment-type Americans of redacting information with the intention of nudging ordinary citizens in the false directions essential to achieving an anti-Christic state of mind. In my view this goal is certainly premeditated, and it depends on ignorance and fecklessness on the part of the Christian community for success. Hence, the all-out effort by them to hid the true identity of Israel and to substitute a fake in its stead. Who has the marks of Israel? Who has the marks of Edom? The Christian community has been “drugged” by its religious leadership, just as one might expect from Revelation, and the group perception is so hazy as to land them in Satan’s “bighouse,” where the two-minded people gather to talk out both sides of their mouth.

4. “Now, let us take notice that it was during the same period that there arose in the Aegean Islands and on the coastland of Europe another civilization, whose lustre still survives until this day–the civilization of Greece–but it must be borne in mind that the instigators of that civilization never called themselves Greeks but Hellenes, Achaeans, Danai, and Lacedaemonians. Scholars have wondered where that high type of culture and manhood suddenly came from, but a little searching with an open mind will soon answer that question: and let it be noted that the so-called mythical age of Greece is also contemporaneous with the Golden Age of Phoenicia and Israel.

“It was the later Romans who first called those people by the name of Greeks, from the Latin word Graeci, meaning ‘Orientals.’ Those ‘Orientals’ traced their descent from Deucalion and Pyrrha, who escaped from the Deluge with their three sons. The earliest inhabitants of  Greece were the Pelasgians, who were the erectors of the Pelasgian or Cyclopean stone monuments, which we also find in Britain. Their name indicates that the Pelasgians were the sons of Peleg, the son of Eber (Genesis 10:25). The Hellenic civilization, however, did not commence until the Dorian invasion of about 1200 or 1100 B.C. Dorian, however, is only another form of Trojan, as the interchange of T and D is common to the early Aryan languages. That the Trojans were Israelites we shall see…

“To readers of Homer’s Iliad and Odessey the name of Danai is familiar; in the Iliad the Danai are mentioned 147 times, and it requires no great stretch of the imagination to see that the Danai were people of the Israelitish tribe of Dan. Later Grecian history knows the Danai no more: they moved northward into Europe, and we can trace their wanderings by the place-names they left behind them, such as Danube, Donetz, Danzig, Dnieper, Dniester, and even into Denmark and Norway, where they appear as the Donsk people. Some of them, however, seemed to have stayed in Greece, but under different names, such as Macedonians and Lacedaemonians or Spartans. In confirmation of this we have a passage in the First Book of the Maccabees, 12: 20-22, which mentions a letter received by the Jewish High Priest of the day, about 300 B.C. The passage reads: ‘Arius, king of the Spartans, to Onias, the Chief Priest, greetings: It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews, that they are brethren and that they are of the stock of Abraham; to our knowledge ye shall do well to write unto us of your prosperity.’

“Although the Greeks were notorious idolators, yet they believed in one Jove, the Father of Gods, whose name is easily identified with Jehovah. The name of Hellen, the ancestor of the Hellenes is difficult to identify; yet Hellen is said to be a son of Deucalion and is either Shem or Eber. Sir Flinders Petrie in his A Review of History speaks of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Egyptian Dynasties as Hellenic shepherd kings and says: ‘As Hellene is the regular equivalent of the maritime Ha Nebu, ‘lords of the north.’ The 15th Dynasty is correctly named from Phoenicia, whence it entered Egypt.’ As the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties are also spoken of as Hyksos kings, it identifies, therefore, the latter with the Hebrew-Phoenicians, the Phoenicians with the Hellenes and in all probability Hellen with Eber.  Sanchoniathon, the Phoenician, speaks of ‘Saturn or Kronos, whom the Phoenicians call Israel.’ Kronos had twelve sons, one of whom was Jehud or Jupiter. That Jehud is Judah is not difficult to see. The story of the Greek Hercules is the story of Samson, who was a Danite.”                                      [TRACING OUR ANCESTORS, Frederick Haberman, pp. 72-73]

This posting has sought to set the stage for the Great Replanting of Israel. The movements of the various tribes and sub-tribes was a lengthy one according to time. Further, the migrations were almost a constant, albeit staggered and spread, movement from the “calling out” of Abram in Ur to go south into the land of Canaan to the entry of the first Israelites into America. Even in the latter instance, there is good reason to suppose on evidence discovered that America had been reached by Dan, or an Israelite-Phoenician group, or even by an Israelite-Phoenician-Edom group.

The pyramidal structures found in Central America too closely harken to structures found in Egypt to be ignored. Any of these three groups would be familiar with Egyptian pyramids. If Dan, while still primarily abiding in Egypt during the better times, set sail for the sea beyond the Pillars of Hercules, they may well have landed in Central America. They may have also been familiar with Egyptian pyramid building, imparting this knowledge during a lengthy sojourn. Since the local leadership was familiar with slave labor, their contributions of many thousands of expendable slaves could have lent the one missing element. Parenthetically, it is reported that Hernando Cortez, commenting upon the Aztecs, said that they “were great Sodomites.” If this is factual. it would be consistent with a native population under the baleful sway of Baal-worshippers.

Be that as it may, the matter of Israelite “reach” is important. We know that they were not recluses, hiding from the sinful world while awaiting a messiah. They were a vital people. They warred. They traded, They fished and sailed forth. It is inconceivable that they did not set up trading posts around the Mediterranean Sea. Some of these in time became colonies. This process proceeded as a natural expression of a booming population originally set in a small patch of land.

The prophet Nathan, inspired by the Most High, spoke of a new place. Israel had outgrown the Land of Milk and Honey. Yet, they sensed that the Most High had covenanted with their fathers for a land of their own, and He had prepared more than one. The Lands of Milk and Honey became stepping stones that led directly to the final great Land of Milk and Honey–America. Yet, their journey would be stalked all the way by another people. This was a people of burning malice, who sought to avenge their father Esau. The war between two very different people continued the strife that began in the womb of Rebecca. 

The interesting history of Israel OUTSIDE of the Biblical focus is a story that has been buried by Popes and preachers in a common cause: to anoit Jews as the remnant entirety of the Israelite people. The book-burners and knowledge exterminators have been called forth on their usual search and destroy mission. “Deniers” may be hunted down by the Justice Department’s sinister Office of Special Investigations, as prominent figures such as Michael Shapiro, Washington Jewish Week, wonder aloud whether the OSI should be limited to Nazi-chasing. Qui Bono?  This shameful crime will be righted in time, but don’t look for Establishment “Christian” leaders to participate; they don’t hunger and thirst for justice’s sake.

Gobigfoot, 2008.

BURN AFTER READING : A MOVIE REVIEW

Osbourne Cox on the warpath.

Harry & Linda on a date.

This is the latest addition of the Coen Brothers’ Great Americana Circus, in which various American regions are held up for satiric inspection. As is usual with the CoBros, off-beat humor is readily available. For Americans who would like to travel around America “just to see it all” but just can’t find the time, the CoBros’ DVD film oueve may provide a possible answer, albeit a caricatured one.

As is usual for the CoBros (but certainly not from all other directors), they get good performances from their players. Frances McDormand, not surprisingly, is featured in this film (she’s married to one of the directors) and very amusing as the woman who wants to be more than she can be–with a little help from her cosmetic surgeon. George Clooney reappears, rhis time as a variety of federal bodyguard. Brad Pitt appears as a physical therapist associate who chews gum to the tune of his Walkman. He is showing signs of being beyond “young man roles,” so that he appears to be not quite right here. Still, he has the looks and acting ability to pull the role off. Ever since I saw him in The Army of the Twelve Monkeys, I’ve known that he could act. Still, the role belonged to a young Brad Pitt or to someone such as Ed Byrne, who played “Kookie” in 77 Sunset Strip. The best performance was rendered by John Malkovich as the C.I.A. official who is being eased into “nowheresville” in the pecking order at Langley. Richard Jenkins turns in another amusing role as a sort of lovesick superior to Frances McDormand’s character. I might add that Katie Swinton was nearly perfect as the cool, tough wife of Malkovich’s character, Osbourne Cox.

Parenthetically, one of the most interesting things in this movie was a brief, discreet shot of the C.I.A. emblem, which occurred during one of the scenes at Langley. I had never seen or noticed it before. While I’m aware that the U,S. governmental seals and emblems are sometimes composed of occult symbols, the one shown in the movie was more suggestive of real allegience. It was a white background field in the form of a shield that hosted a red star. This “red star” has been associated with Edom-controlled nations, corporations, products, and–as we see here–the nation within a nation known as the C.I.A., which has diplomatic relationships with congress, the president, and other intelligence-gathering organizations. It has its own gross-national product and balance-of-payments issues. Drug-running became an industry for the C.I.A. to increase its available funds whereby to increase its reach. Shady-doings are now de rigueur in the United States governmental branches, so there is hardly a raised eyebrow about crimes in government today. The nice thing about the C.I.A. is that it doesn’t let you know that it is an ongoing criminal enterprise. That way, people are free to suppose them to be on “our side.” No organization that bears the “Red Star of Edom” is ever anything other than ruthless, brutal, avaricious, and international.

The locale for this latest CoBro film is the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan area. For all practical purposes the scenes take place in or about Georgetown and adjacent areas, the Mall, and Langley, VA. The social milieu is composed of people of the middle level (or lower), who are stuck in the turf of the wannabes and feel a little desperate that they may be sinking–or maybe missing out on opportunities. Using others, betraying others, and even criminal acts may seem justified, due to needs of the moment. With no real God or moral order, it’s anything goes under the obscuring shelter of “family values” and “national security.”

The Film Capsule: In a “slice of caricatured life” in Washington, D.C., rendered through the lives of different sets of people, who, initially, for the most part don’t know one another. As the film proceeds through numerous scene cuts, these people’s lives are made to converge in an array of deadly ways. (The CoBros must have blood–it’s that simple.) The film begins (and ends) with an orbiting “bird in the sky” view of the Langley, VA, and adjacent Potomac river area. The “birdseye” zooms in, until the moviegoer finds himself in a room with a handful of men. One of these men is Osbourne Cox (Malkovich). He is being officially informed that he was losing a respectable slot for a significantly lesser one. For a fairly senior official and son of Princeton University, this was hard to bear. One of the pretects is that he drinks “too much.” He notes that one of his accusers is a Mormon and that any drink was “too much” for him. Anger not availing him any, the clean-pated Cox goes home. He is going to resign from the C.I.A. and write a book. Meantime, his wife, Katie (Swinton) is having an adulterous relationship with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney). About Osbourne, she’s cool and no-nonsense. She’s got divorce not too far from the front burner. She expects to marry her adulterous partner, Harry, who is also married to a woman who also writes. Hence, she’s conveniently away on book tours or closeted with her word processor. They seem happy. One infers that Harry is perfectly content to stay married to wife, Sandy (Elizabeth Marvel), and also to indulge in as many extra-marital relationships as he can squeeze in. He seems to be good at it, and Washington appears to abound with women of a kindred spirit. One of these is Linda Litzke (McDormand), who, as with Harry, cruises the internet for dating websites. She has signed up on at least one, as the moviegoer observes her on a couple of dates, the last of which is with Harry Pfarrer. She works at a DC spa. Her supervisor is Ted Treffon (Richard Jenkins), who clearly has romantic eyes for Linda, and just as predictably, she is barely conscious of him as a romantic interest. Her friend and associate at the spa is Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), who is a peppy, gum-smacking sort–a bit lightweighted in the dome, who gets drawn into her machinations. She is obsessed with a body makeover, which will cost a bunch of loot. How to get the loot? There are funny renderings of her at the telephone, trying to make contact with insurance people, etcetera, about financing the surgery. Meranwhile, Osbourne Cox, who is very frequently seen to be drinking, is proceeding with his book. He has an agent and provides him with a DVD draft of his book. This agent loses it at the spa. When Chad gets it to Linda, she perceives it as highly classified material and attempts to blackmail Osbourne Cox for the money to have her operation. Chad is drawn into her extortion scheme. At this point the moviegoer may wonder if the CoBros have ripped off the basic concept from Dog Day Afternoon, directed by Sidney Lumet. It seems that committing a felony to finance cosmetic surgery (never without risks) is evidence of temporary insanity. That’s pretty much what Osbourne Cox tells Chad Feldheimer when they rendevous for what Chad thinks is going to be a bag of cash, paid for the missing DVD. Pitt and Malkovich are pretty funny here. There’s a struggle for the DVD, and Chad gets it back to Linda. She then decides to try to sell the DVD to the Russians at the embassy. She has only one DVD and lets them take a look, implying that there are more where that came from (there are not, of course). This fiasco goes nowhere, but McDormand is funny as she deals with the Russians. For her surgery she’s willing to play for high stakes. She hasn’t gone unnoticed by the C.I.A., as she has visited the Russian Embassy. Also, she has a date with Harry Pfarrer through their mutually used website. All of her first-time webdates seem to end in bed, and so it was with Harry. These two get along well. As all these sets of deceiving, angle-playing people converge, things begin to play out in unexpectedly deadly ways. None of these people are what today’s crowd would consider “bad people.” Harry Pfarrer in his government work is allowed to carry a concealed handgun, which he jokes about openly, saying that he had never had to shoot anyone in twenty years, or some such. But times, they are a-changing! Katie has changed the locks on the doors of her townhouse, thrown Osbourne’s clothes & stuff out, and with her attorney’s help been able to rip-off all Osbourne’s bank-based loot. It makes for disappointing trips to the ATMs. Plus, someone is tailing Osbourne. He is really bent-nosed about all that’s has happened recently and he’s in no mood to take anymore. Harry visits Katie at her townhouse. Finding himself alone, he showers. Meantime, Chad has broken into the Cox townhouse to locate and steal Osbourne’s other DVDs. Seeing that Harry is in the bathroom of the upstairs bedroom, Chad seeks to hide in the closet. It’s safe to conclude a symbolic side to Chad’s move. As things happen, Harry goes to the closet, discovers Chad, reaches for his gun excitedly, and blasts Chad in the noodle. It’s pretty messy and shocking. what to do with the body? He bags it and drags it to the trunk of his car. He’s being tailed also. The moviegoer learns later from a scene at the C.I.A. that he dumped the bag of Chad in the Cheasapeake Bay. The C.I.A. chief concluded that it was best to just forgetaboutit. Meanwhile, Linda has pressured Ted Treffon at the spa to use his skills and break into the Cox home, downloading files to offer for sale to the Russians. She’s still obscessed with her surgical procedure–the makeover that will permanently change her life for the better. Ted is discovered by the already deeply angry Osbourne, who demands to know who he is and what he is doing. This bit of violence leasds up to Osbourne, steaming, going outside his townhouse with a hatchet, furious at someone near his car. Oh, brother! O. Cox gets shot down like a dog. The C.I.A. opinion: It’s best–close the file. The Russians tell Linda, “No thanks.” Harry just wants his “momma” to come home from her tour. He’s been a bad boy. The Washington scene hasn’t changed much. Some players fade away; others rise up to replace them in this modern-day “memorial on the Potomac” to Vanity Fair.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

WORDPRESS CENSORS AT IT AGAIN

I’d like to mention how frequently my posts are published without any notice given by WordPress on its list of “Latest Posts.” They have now decided to “stifle” my book review of “IN THE SHADOW OF LIONS” by Ginger Garrett. How fearful these people must be, if my words cause such desperate acts of censorship, as the many failures to officially note my posts indicate is happening. Let the sun shine in!

Gobogfoot, 2008.

IN THE SHADOW OF LIONS: A BOOK REVIEW

Anne Boleyn with sharp, suspicious gaze awaits the approach of the reader.

I must admit that I was initially confused, when I began reading Ms. Garrrett’s historical fiction, In The Shadow of Lions. I fully expected to immediately enter sixteenth century England. However, Ms. Garret has chosen to enter upon the body of her romantic adventure by means of a ”story within a story,” which is made to have continuity by the devices of spiritism, parallel and genaeology. For the protagonist, Bridget, her special history lesson, conducted by the Scribe, becomes a touchstone. It will help her to decide whose hand she will take at the border. Ms. Garrett is an imaginative lass.

Although the idea of “guardian angels” for individuals is ancient, Ms. Garrett introduces the idea of guardian angels for families, as well. And, yes! They do influence events. Far-fetched? Perhaps, but the idea of an “invisible hand” shaping events and destinies is also ancient. Hence, the reader may not be entirely surprised to discover that a prominent element in this story is the Scribe’s “Book of Destiny,” touching upon Bridget, Rose, Anne, and others who will be met along the way. Nor is the Scribe the only “not strictly Earthly” being. Beware the Selasals!

One can promptly observe influences from predecessors who have developed variations of this device for relating a tale. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Lewis Carroll’s Alice In Wonderland. L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz, and Tales from a Thousand and One Nights [numerous authors] are just a few of the imaginative forerunners to Ms. Garrett. As a matter of inference, I have no doubt that the “guiding vision” in this story, Scribe, was inspired by none other than Shaquille O’Neal in the film Aladdin.

Allow me to make a grammatical criticism. At chapter ten on pages 104 and 105, I noticed two instances in which the expression “different than” appears, rather than “different from.” This being so, there are probably other instances as well. As this is incorrect usage, it should not appear. One can forgive a writer slip ups here and there, but how could the book’s copyreader not edit out this mistake? It’s not an issue of style.

So, having initiated my read of this book, I found myself in a hospice, where a patient (Bridget) is rendering a first-person singular statement of “life on the border.” The hospice catered to the needs of terminal cancer patients. These are patients who are frequently treated with strong painkillers, such as morphine. They tend to be elderly, also. Hence, not only were they converging on the border of life and death, material and spiritual, but doing so with minds that are now lucid, now cloudy, and now again hallucinatory. As one dies, reality is annihilated. Hallucinations are a human’s last attempt to make sense of it all.

Thus, from the outset Ms. Garrett draws us into this strangeland. It seems to be an unlikely “looking glass,” yet the reader feels compelled to enter. Enter for the mystery of it. Enter for the adventure. Enter for the challenge. Who are these women? I believe that readers will find the mystery worth pursuing. I did.

It isn’t too long before the reader is removed to “jolly old England.” Through the eyes of a young woman named “Rose” the reader is introduced to a strange ritual cleansing conducted by a cardinal of the Church and a gentleman, who was called “Sir Thomas” and “More.” Rose herself had only recently given birth to a bastard lad, and she was still weak, confused, shamed, and depressed. In the rainy April darkness she crept as near as she dared to watch the disenterment of a priest who had “cast pearl before swine.” As the last embers cooled about the remnant of the stake, the men went to their horses to gallop their separate ways. At that very moment Rose hurled her body before the uncoming hooves. Her desperate act of destruction oddly resolves itself in a kind of rebirth within the warm and ample abode of the man called Thomas More.

Parenthetically, ambivalence by the primary women in this story in regard to simply living becomes a recurring emotional attitude that is worth noting.

The reader understands that Rose conceals a secret, which somehow involves a priest and the Church. Further, there seems to be a kind of standard that is operating here, as well as through time, that small deceits are permissible in ordinary intercourse for purposes of persuasion. Few are immune to its allure.

With this dreary, strange introduction Ms. Garrett leads her guests into a fascinating and important period in English history, as well as in the unfolding Christian idea of itself and its mission. The English characters in this novel are heavily influenced by Christian thought, however aberrant, as well as the pecking order of power. An obligation toward duty is magnified, serving also as a shield and brace for the vast majority of people who exist in a weak, submissive condition. This allows an unjust fate to be rationalized by asserting that one has done one’s duty. Mercy is typically the province of Heaven alone. There is little use for it in Tudor England. In fact aberrant theology may conclude that torture, rightly understood, is a mercy! For the reader it is unnerving to see a nation ruled by aberrant theology, superstition, and insidious rumor-mongering. Yet, this seems to be the case in the England of Henry VIII. Less you be mortified, let me say that it still happens in our thoroughly modern times. It is simply not a cultural imperative.

The contemporary colloquy between Bridget and the Scribe, as Bridget transcribes relevant pages from the Book of Destiny, introduces us to Anne Boleyn. In the telling of the tale Ms. Garrett is wonderfully informative, delightful in her imaginative elaborations of scant historical data, sometimes compelling and always from the female perspective abiding. One must recall how important perspective is at determining the truth of something. Truth must be hemmed in, corralled, triangulated–and even then it may defy precise understanding. Ms. Garrett’s addition is very helpful.

In her tale the meeting of Henry VIII and Anne Bolleyn gets personal under shady circumstances and partial anonymity, as if Zeus had hidden himself in a humble human shape to engage a comely woman. The interlude, however, is characterized by pain and compassion, rather than lust. Yet, one thing leads to another.

Rose and Anne are women from different cultural planes in English society. However, as their lives unfold, they converge. The twin vortexes of national sovereign and religious sovereign each forcefully drawing them and compelling them to choose. The reader gets a good insight into the general life of women during Tudor England, as well as the major figures caught in the wake of that great ship of state–Henry VIII. Sir Thomas More, Lord Percy, Cardinal Wolsey, Catherine of Aragon, Jane Bolleyn, Jane Grey, and many others are woven into the developing image as Bridget and the Scribe “burn the midnight oil.” There is no music playing in the background, save the unsung words of the old coal-mining song: “Whose side are you on, whose side are you on.”

Seemingly unimportant characters in Ms. Garrett’s book can become, in retrospect, more influential than one would ever have suspected.

“I want a home where books do not matter as much as love.”

I believe that this line spoken by Margaret More holds true for all the women encountered. Tension, however, is created by the context, which for all must be lawful. The law springs from either Scripture or the minds of men. For the Tudor-era women love has not been perfected until sanctioned by formal wedlock. Even Rose, who is sexually experienced, does not confuse this unlawful experience as love. In some noticeable degree the legal/familial duties that create dramatic opposition between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn recapitulate the conflict between King Creon and Antigone. In both cases civil law challenges a “higher” law, which is of a moral or religious order. In both cases the kings attempt to misrepresent their orders as also being of a higher order. This makes compromise or concession difficult. Where neither can concede, tragic conflict become inevitable.

In this tale Anne Boleyn’s family isn’t really lofty, but might be compared to that of an upper middleclass woman today, who had been well-educated, had taken a year’s study at the Sorbonne, and had returned to the U.S. to take an executive position advising David Rockefeller, while sending dust flying with her wit and decollete’, and thus provoking spiteful rumors. In such a scenario the only missing ingredient is the permeating Christian faith, as well as Reformist challenges to it, that characterize sixteenth century England and the Continent.

On the other hand Ms. Garrett’s Rose is alone and a “street person,” hustling her youth and wits to make her daily subsistence wage. For Sir Thomas More, a very prominent and ”enlightened”  figure at King Henry VIII’s court, Rose becomes a “social experiment,” which resonates with the Pygmalian tale and, of course, My Fair Lady. Sir Thomas and Henry Higgins have similar goals, differing primarily in the crucial idioms of their cultures, which each attempts to recreate in a lesser specimen. For God, for science, for country and for vanity do they proceed with their “enlightened” (and speculative) experiments.

At least Rose finds and offers companionship within the More household. She finds it in Sir Thomas’ daughter, Margaret. Sir Thomas proves to be a kindly patron also. Through Rose’s eyes, primarily, are we provided with the contrasting, sometimes contradictory, characteristics of Sir Thomas More, which make him finally the most intriguing figure at a court which includes not only Henry VIII but Cardinal Wolsey, the spymaster Cranmer, and the queen, Catherine.

On the other hand Anne Boleyn seems strangly alone. She has a family that possesses a degree of prominence. Yet, they recede in Ms. Garrett’s tale to a hazy reality which is not given much more than passing mention. Anne’s brother George is mentioned a few times, yet he is hardly more than some generic kid. Allusions to George’s misdirected libido are made, and the reader is informed that the power of the sovereign’s sword falls most certainly upon heretics and “doers of unnatural acts.” Still, it is not her familiai influences that we note as shaping her character so much as religious faith and feminine imperatives of that time– and perhaps all time.

Ms. Garrett provides the reader with one year in the life of Anne Boleyn. That year, however, begins with Rose. In fact the reader doesn’t encounter Anne until the fifth chapter.

The Tudor tale by Ms. Garrett is framed by and interacts remotely with a contemporary colloquy between a woman in a hospice and a “vision,” which I have mentioned above. These opening pages in which “Bridget” expresses herself did not please my ear, altogether, due to vocabulary and obscurity. Bridget was a literary agent/editor, who loved, envied and sabotaged her most promising client, “David.” Perhaps these initial pages suggested why she was an agent/editor and not a writer. Nevertheless, as Bridget, her visitor, and the Book of Destiny settle in the reader’s mind, her story, although somewhat thin soup, becomes more savory. By the end of this tale Ms. Garrett achieves an unexpectedly moving conclusion to her story of Anne, Rose and Bridget.

I certainly encourage others to give this book a try, because I think you’ll like it. I think that this is especially true for women.

Lastly, not to be overlooked are the notes by the author in regard to her tale, which are found immediately after the epilog. All in all, In The Shadow of Lions is a very satisfying way to spend a winter’s day.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

W. : A MOVIE REVIEW WITH COMMENTARY

The Presidemt meets the press.

George W. Bush at messy Yale

This film is about the sitting President of the United States, and it is a biographical sketch. As such, it is selective in the “shaping events” in the life of George W. Bush, which it offers as evidence of the “real” man. This film is directed by Oliver Stone, who is known to be a bit tendentious in tone and loose with historical data. He is, nevertheless, an effective director, achieving memorable films. This may be one of them for many.

Oddly, he rendered “George W.” (Josh Brolin) as a rather likable individual. High-spirited and irresponsible as a young man, he finds himself repeatedly involved in messy or awkward situations. The father, “George H. W.” (James Cromwell), aka, “Popie,” repeatedly comes to the rescue. Cromwell renders George H. W. Bush as a stoical sort, who is completely framed by his family name and sense of duty. As there are few men who have not displayed a few “wild hairs” in their youth, few will think the worst of George W.’s transgressions. ["He who is without sin cast the first stone."] Nor will the steadfast, patient, stoical George H.W. be ill-thought of by the moviegoer, as he tries to deal with a faux pas or contretemps of “Junior’s.” On the other hand this may be a sort of sub rosa method of Oliver Stone to suggest that “H.W.” was actually a chronic and habitual “fixer” in everything he did.

Quite frankly, I don’t buy into the George H.W. image provided by Oliver Stone and his writer, Stanley Weiser, nor that of “W.” for that matter, but that’s not the issue, since the movie stands as a thing itself. Also, when does a Hollywood film “based on a real historical event” ever cleave to the “historical event?” They are usually very loosely connected to such events. They cannot be trusted as accurate depictions. Still, they must connect with a few. So it is with this film. One is safest when viewing it as a caricature and social satire. From this perspective the film has some amusing episodes and vignettes.

The film divides into two parts: firstly, it deals with the young, often intoxicated and wild W., where a taste of Texas culture is served up as well. Secondly, it deals with the “born again,” sober, married and now politically ambitious W. Frankly, the giving in to Christ and giving up of alcohol would be entirely admirable, if entirely true.

This leads to another matter. One may infer that Oliver Stone, in so much as W. is a menacing hypocrit, is fingering Christianity as an unindicted co-defendant. This would be at one with the relatively contemporary effort by “Holocaust” mongerers to blame Christianity for the death of “six million Jews.” These deceitful postulations cannot stand on the evidence. There is nothing more certain than that W.’s Administration is filled with “neo-conservatives” whose founders, Irving Krystal, Norman Podoretz, et al, were former Trotskyites or fellow travelers. They became “born again” conservatives for the sake of advancing Zionism and the “Jewish World Agenda” (a phrase employed by N.J. politician Corzine). The Bush Administration, as is typical sense FDR’s, is disparately weighted with Jews, and those that are not profess the same or similar “neo-conservative” geopolitical views. Thus, one finds Condoleezza Rice, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Two out of three of these may have Jewish antecedants. Speaking of which, W., himself, has Jewish features. His Christian faith may be quite ernest, and, then again, it may be a ruse. Oliver Stone chooses the first option.

This allows the Levantine intrusion to be likened to a Middle Age crusade. This characterization is embraced by some Muslim spokespeople. Thus, the struggle can be tagged as a “Christian vs. Muslim” battle. However, bona fide Christianity in America has no vital interest in the Levant upon which to go to war, assuming preemptive war-making were ever a Christian way. Christianity has no special interest in the “holy land” which is a God-forsaken piece of arid turf, ruled by people desperate to find a river. Qui bono? Who benefits from America’s going incredibly deep in debt to annihilate potential enemies of Israel, create “democracies” guided by Jewish/masonic puppets, and expropriate Levantine oil in the name of the “world community?” Go figure!

Also, there is a substantial gap in this film dealing with the Bush family’s rather marked affinity for Latino culture. In fairness there were a couple of scenes of W., speaking Spanish to a Tex-Mex compatriot. Yet, Oliver Stone/Stanley Weiser leave out quite a lot of important details which are important in understanding the Bush family. George H.W. had named his oil exploration company Zapata Offshore, after the Mexican revolutionary. W. had named (or another member of his family) another oil exploration company Arbusto Exploration. Arbusto is a Spanish form of Bush. Cute? The Governor George W. Bush’s administration was noted for its large number of Latin administrators. I believe that among these was Alberto Gonzales. Can anyone imagine a honest sketch of the political rise of W. in Texas that left off Alberto Gonzales? Further, George H.W. was familiar with the likes of Noriega of Panama (and many more like him) from at least his days as Director of the C.I.A. As Reagan’s Vice President, George W. was put into a position of “Drug Tsar” of America’s fight against drugs. There were big splashy accounts of drug busts in Florida at the very time Barry Seal, well-known C.I.A. operative/contractor, was flying cargo planes filled with cocaine from clandestine airstripes in Panama and Columbia, which allegedly had been built by Army Special Forces personnel ”loaned” to the C.I.A., to Mena, Arkansas, where “brother” Billy Jeff Clinton, the governor, knew “nothINK about it!” No wonder that the rumored C.I.A.-linked Clinton and George H.W. got along so famously. But even with all the vigilance in Florida, the D.E.A.’s planned sting of an incoming flight from Latin America had to be aborted, for the politically sound reason that two sons, including W., of George H.W. were on that plane that was the D.E.A.’s target. Folks, the affinity of the Bush family for the people and culture of Latin America, especially the revolutionary/criminal elements, and their facile deeds (which appear criminal), as they go about making a buck and/or “serving” their country, should warrant a tad notice “in this here film.” [Let's not even bring up the relationships with the Bin Laden family, Saddam Hussein, et al.]

The Story Capsule with Commentary: The President of the United States, George W. Bush, comes into office on January 21, 2001. From this period to about 2005 the story unfolds with well known political events such as 9/11, the unseating of Saddam Hussein, and the progressive involvement of U.S. occupational forces both in Iraq and Afghanistan. During this period Preident W. is shown initially as a popular president, whose popularity wanes as deaths and debt increase sharply. It is something Popie can’t fix. Naturally, the President has reflective moments during these years. By means of these, flashbacks allow the moviegoer to see the “making of the president” by describing bits of his young manhood at Yale and at various locales within Texas. The Yale scene was largely the inducting of new members (including W.) into the Sigma Alpha (or some such) fraternity. Oliver Stone implies here that the bedrock pools of money controlling America are controlled by the families of these young men. W. is shown to be a chronic drinker of alcohol, as were many of his associates. The ill-effects of alcohol aren’t so apparent, but there are scenes of W. being jailed, crashing his car into trees, and so on. He is presented as just a fun-loving fellow out for a good time. Popie gets W. a number of jobs, but W. can’t seem to hold them.  One example is as an oilrig roughneck. He walks off the post, as he’s very hot, tired and thirsty, and fetches a beer for a self-given “take ten.” The rig foreman (Randal Reeder) ordered him back to his post. Reeder was a large, dirty, and no nonsense presence. Not daunted, when he couldn’t cojole the break, he just finished his beer and said that he didn’t need this job. Besides sewing wild oats, W. is trying to establish himself as a regular Texan, rather than a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Still, he had to confront the accusation of being a carpetbagging outsider. He has a fling with a blonde who liked to hang out at the honkytonk favored by W, Finally. he meets the lady librarian at a party who would become his first lady and then eventually the nation’s. Laura (Elizabeth Banks) was a pretty gal, and moviegoers may admire the convincing country accent of Banks. His outsider moniker came to the fore soon. This was well illustrated in his first run for elective office against Democrat Kent Hance (Paul Rae). This was one of the better scenes in the flick. Paul Rae was good as “Hance.” Constant adviser Karl Rove is seen here for the first time. His influence is inferred, although no specific plan of his is stated. Oliver Stone probably doesn’t want to bring up his Latino block strategy.  Parenthetically, throughout this film there are references to brother Jeb, who is characterized as brainy and goal-oriented. There is an unspoken statement that W. is neither. Also, on a few occasions in this film there were “visions” by W, of his being in the outfield of the baseball team he came to partially own. He is seen typically as accepting the applause of the imaginary fans or dropping back to catch a deep centerfield fly. There is a sense of a man yearning for popular support–even love. This image seems to strengthen W. to proceed with the real tasks at hand. He does have an athletic side, and each day sees him jogging three miles. He is a man reared as an Episcopalian, or sometimes Presbyterian, yet, apparently doesn’t feel that he’s really Christian. He hears a preacher, “Earle Hudd” (Stacy Keach), who stirs him to ask for a few moments of the preacher’s time. W. confesses his “something’s missing” feelings, gets counseling and support, becomes a born-again Christian, and begins a more settled, businesslike lifestyle. He helps his Popie as he runs for President, including approving the famous “Willie Horton” ad on TV. Was this ad a sign of W.’s Christian renewal?

It seems that Stone is inviting the question. However, W.’s brand of Christianity was also one that revered the Ten Commandments. He is also likely to be a “Zionist” in his “Christian” thinking. Hence, the real unspoken causa belli was the unwillingness of Muslim countries to give the Israeli state their love. “Without love–where would we be now?” W.’s neo-conservative advisers might well counsel him. “Maybe,” they advised, “what is needed is a shotgun wedding.” The idea of “shooting anyone who wouldn’t come to the wedding ” seemed to seize the President’s advisers. And why let them strike back? A Pearl Harbor event in America has already occurred. Now, armed with knowledge of the fruitfulness of dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, lets “light up the Levant!” Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al, must have expressed themselves exultantly. Incidentally, some of the performances by the actors given the roles of Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss), Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), Wolfowitz (Dennis Boutsikaris), et al, were drool. The best character lampoon was Thandie Newton’s rendering of Condoleezza Rice, which was outstanding, savory, and very rewarding to observe. There was a scene when George Tenet (Bruce McGill) of the C.I.A. was being criticized by another adviser at the President’s Conference table that evoked wonderfully amusing mugs from McGill’s Tenet. There were other amusing scenes of W. leading his counselers along a dusty road on his Crawford ranch. There was the famous “Cheetos Incident.” Increasingly, as the Iraq adventure seemed to be a madding dustdevil of improvised bombs, the mood at the White House became more tense. Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) is the only cautionary voice among the advisers. The more dismay the public shows in regard to White House policies, the more the President and his staff talk of “weapons of mass destruction” and bombing Iran. Is there a failure to communicate? The President believed in action. War is action. Why can’t the American people understand that.

Josh Brolin provided another good performance as W. Tobey Jones did a curious Karl Rove, as the “boy genius” never said much to make the moviegoer think he was exceptional. He is a fairly quiet, background presence. Jones utilizes facial expression to fill in the lack of script provided by Weiser. His frequent presence with W. is the only indication that he may be important. There is overall good supporting performances in this film–often with a comical side–which tends to make this an enjoyable “slice of biographical life.” Elizabeth Banks does a fine job. Too bad that Weiser could not have worked in some of her edgy isolation at the White House, leading to her comment that “They hate us.”

Lastly, W.’s repeated comments about the “fundamental soundness of the American economy” during the early months of 2008 will be remembered as the essential statement, which displayed for all the world to see, the twin options: his dishonesty or his obtuseness. This movie pales by comparixon.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.