Saladmaster Dutch Oven

I own a large http://Saladmaster.Com pot with a dutch oven top. That and a 2-quart pot are the only things I had left after getting divorced in 1978 back in Loveland, Colorado. My ex got the rest of the Saladmaster waterless cookware set I'd sweated and toiled to afford.

Unfortunately, the 2-quart pot developed a rounded bottom and it rocked so badly on the flat glass stovetop that my new wife got mad and threw it away. When I went looking for it, and she told me what happened, I nearly had a heart attack because I knew what she didn't - it was guaranteed for life. Now I have an even newer wife (the guarantee on the old one ran out afer a month or two).

If you take pity on me, you can send me a new 2-quart pot. I'll love you for it, since I now do nearly all the cooking around here.

Meanwhile, the "real" reason I'm writing is to ask your advice on a sticky cooking problem. My oven door fell off and I can't bake while waiting to get a new oven. And today, some bananas were going bad, so my new wife asked me to make her some banana bread. I want to keep this wife, so I said "No problem. I'll bake it in my Saladmaster dutch oven."

"Our oven is BROKEN, remember," my wife asked, knowing I remember because Alzheimer's doesn't run in my family and I'm the one who caried the oven door to its grave.

"Sure, Babe," I replied. But I was talking about THIS Dutch oven."

I took the two pots out of the cabinet and proudly set them on the stove. I showed her how the thinner-walled pot could be inverted to make a perfect seal on top of the larger pot with the heavy bottom. "See? It's called a Dutch Oven because the Dutch people used cast iron pots like it to bake in over the fire place when they didn't have a real oven. That was before stainless steel was invented, and our Saladmaster Dutch oven is even better. See, the bottom and sides contain a cast iron and aluminum core that spreads the heat and keeps it even. That's how the pots let you cook without water. They heat evenly and hold in the moisture and nutrients, so the food you cook in it is delicious, cooked to perfection, and really good for your body. I'm gonna make that banana bread and bake it in this Dutch Oven."

She didn't believe me, of course, and walked back to her easy chair shaking her head and muttering about how I'd better not f*** up that cake.

Okay, so I grabbed my Joy of Cooking cookbook and whipped up the fabulous banana bread batter my wife has come to know and love. Then I looked in the cookbook and was dismayed to find no instructions on using a dutch oven for stovetop baking a cake. I searched the web, and ditto.

Then, I figured, what the hell, how hard can it be? I buttered the big pot, poured in the batter, smoothed it out, put on the dutch oven top, set it on the large burner, and set the burner to medium. After 5 minutes, I turned it down to 1, the setting just above low. It's an electric glass top oven, so I could only guess at how hot that was.

I went back to my computer to continue my search, then gave up and started handling email. Before long I noticed that tell-tale burnt smell, and jumped up to check the pot. Yep, the smell was coming from it.

I lifted the lid and smelled it more. Even worse, the top of the cake still looked like batter. So I removed it from the heat, cooled down the bottom of the pot with a wet sponge, turned the heat to its lowest setting, and set the pot back on. I was determined to bake that cake, burnt or not. After all, how hard is to cut off the burnt part?

Okay, now I have checked it a couple of times, and the batter on top is finally solidified into cake. So I did successfully bake the banana bread.

But, the bottom is burned, and I have no idea how to remove the cake from the pan without destroying it.

I figured, now that I have f***ed up the banana bread, and my wife has stomped out of the house without telling me where she's going, I'd better write to you for advice. So, here's my question:

How do I bake banana bread in my Saladmaster Dutch Oven without f***ing it up?

Can you send me a recipe booklet and some Dutch Oven instructions for stovetop baking?

Oleander and Cancer

You'd think the millions of dollars spent by pharmaceutical companies would have produced some sure-fire cancer cures, but then it's understandable that no cures have been found, and that is becasue a cure would prevent purveyors of cancer "treatments" from making money. And of course the US Food and Drug Administration gladly collaborates with medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies who really don't want to see cancer cured. The FDA does this by withholding approval of any "natural" remedies that are supported only by anecdotal evidence. Oleander and its derivatives are a classic example of how the FDA actually works to block people from taking folk remedies to cure cancer.

That, however, does not prevent you from making your own cancer cure using oleander.

There are numerous sources of information on oleander. One is Tony Isaacs' internet book at http://roselaurel.com. Another is the Minnesota Wellness Directory at ttp://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/altthrpy3.htm#Oleander. Another is this blog.

The idea is that oleander leaves, normally toxic, can be rendered non-toxic by boiling the leaves, filtering the liquid, and further reducing it by boiling to produce a soup. Cancer victims can safely ingest up to three tablespoons of the soup a day (after an initial period of smaller doses to get the body used to it). By taking the soup, they can dramatically reduce tumor size in a matter of weeks. The recipe, in a nutshell is:

1. Wearing rubber gloves, collect a plastic grocery bag full of oleander leaves
2. Cut them to fit in a 3-gallon stainless steel or porcelain canning pot, then press them down and cover them with water
3. Boil the covered pot in a gentle roll for 4 hours, then remove from heat and bring to room temperature.
4. Use tongs to remove and discard the leaves.
5. Bring the filtered broth back to a boil and reduce it till it is 30% of the original liquid (specific gravity is 1010)
6. Filter the broth through 4 layers of paper towels in a colander.
7. If you want to make a skin cream to eliminate skin cancers or psoriasis, do not do the following steps. Instead, continue boiling till only ½ inch of liquid remains in the pot, and mix the syrup with any skin cream (syrup = 30%).
8. Mix the soup 50/50 with 80 proof vodka or cider vinegar to preserve it (shelf life 6 months)
9. Add a pint of pancake syrup for flavor
10. Pour the elixir into brown glass bottles and refrigerate.
11. Starting with ½ teaspoon of elixir per day, take a couple of weeks to work up to 1 tablespoon 3 times daily with meals. After elixir no longer produces fever (if you're taking it to eliminate virus infections) and the tumors are gone, reduce dosage to a maintenance tonic of 1 tablespoon per day.

If you or a loved one suffer from cancer (particularly if doctors have given up on you), remember oleander, which grows in populated areas all across the southern USA. The worst that could happen is you could die from it. So what? Cancer's going to kill you anyway.

C.H. Spurgeon and the Plan of Salvation

---

From: Bible Baptist Church Tommy H. Heffner Sr
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:17 PM

“It will not save me to know that Christ is a Saviour; but it will save me to trust him to be my Saviour. I shall not be delivered from the wrath to come, by believing that his atonement is sufficient; but I shall be saved by making that atonement my trust, my refuge, and my all. The pith, the essence of faith lies in this---a casting oneself on the promise. It is not the life buoy on board ship that saves the man when he is drowning, nor is it his belief that it is an excellent and successful invention. No! he must have it around his loins, or his hand upon it, or else he will sink.”

C.H. Spurgeon http://www.akjb.org

Tommy:

Thanks for regurgitating Spurgeon. I have a few questions and comments on your recital.

I do not understand the mechanism of salvation as you and Spurgeon see it. What exactly is it that saves you? Normally, you contend that one must merely accept on faith (believe, without proven facts as the basis) that Christ’s death on the cross constitutes a blood sacrifice of a perfect human being to atone for our sins and overcome our sin nature so that we can have relationship (fellowship or divine Sonship) with God. Now you say one must “trust” Christ to be one’s Savior, wholeheartedly trust that atonement, and be surrounded by it as though by a lifebuoy.

I don’t get all the emphasis on trust. If it is so hard to trust something that you must put effort and emphasis into it, maybe it isn’t that trustworthy. Even so, either you believe something or you don’t. Apparently, Spurgeon thinks believing is not enough, and one must believe so strongly as to be frenetic about it. Perhaps he is saying that’s how he feels, and everybody else ought to feel the same. Well, I guess he’s the preacher, so why shouldn’t he preach?

On the other hand, why should we believe him? His message is clear - his words indicate he is trying to pass on an essential truth to us. And yet he provides no credible support for his faith-trust in the salvation power of atoning sacrifice, and he gives us no compelling reason to believe it. In fact, the thing he’s encouraging people to trust seems so illogical and weird as to defy any kind of belief, much less trust.

Besides, Jesus very clearly did not agree with his ideas. In particular, Jesus never publicly discussed, or even mentioned, the concept of atonement.

Let us consider for a moment what Jesus did discuss, teach, and command. Look up and study the associated references in your Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible:

1. Jesus told people to “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15).
2. He ordered his apostles to preach in the same way (Matthew 10:7, Mark 6:12).
3. He said he was bringing the gospel to this world directly from the Father himself (John 5:30, 6:39; 14:10)
4. He told the apostles (and, by extension us and all other people) to
1. Love others (John 13:34)
2. Forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15, 18:21-22, Mark 11:25-26)
3. Serve others unselfishly and lovingly (John 13:14, Luke 22:26)
4. Love God (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37)
5. Believe him and his God-given authority to teach those things (John 3:16, John 14:24).
5. He said forgiving others earns God’s forgiveness (Matthew 6:14-15),
6. He said not forgiving others earns God’s displeasure (Matthew 18:35),
7. He said loving God and other people earns everlasting life (Luke 10:25-28)
8. He said serving others earns a high status in heaven (Matthew 23:11).
9. Jesus encouraged people to embrace their Sonship with God on faith, seeing God as their Heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16, 5:48, 6:1, 6:14, 6:26, 6:32, 11:27, 18:14, 23:9, Mark 11-25 Luke 11:13)
10. He encouraged people to see themselves as God’s children, and all humans as their brothers (Matthew 5:41-48, 12:50).
11. He went so far as to state that God’s spirit indwells us (Luke 17:21, John 14:23), thereby having the most intimate possible relationship with us.
12. He offered hope that we can become like God in aligning our wills with that of our Heavenly Father (Matthew 7:21, 12:50, John 14:21), not only because God’s spirit is in us (see above), but also because we have the ability to be relatively perfect (Matthew 5:48), and after we pass his approval we can meet the Father in person (John 14:6).
13. He referred to scripture (implying it is true) that suggested we are children of the most High (God), and are or might someday be gods, perhaps to worlds in the outer reaches of the ever expanding and materializing universe (Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-36).
14. From the very beginning of his public ministry, Jesus taught his good news gospel about the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 4:23; 9:35, 10:7, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 7:22, Luke 9:6), and he explained that was the reason he was sent to this world (Luke 4:23). Never once in his public teachings did Jesus mention anything about his death or its relevance as an atoning sacrifice, nor did he encourage trusting in it as an element of salvation.
15. However, at the very end of his time here on earth, Jesus ordered his apostles (and therefore us) to teach his commands and his gospel about the Kingdom of Heaven to all creatures (including Jews and Gentiles) in all nations on earth (Mark 16:10, Matthew 28:19-20). He did not tell his apostles to identify as gospel and/or teach some other religious philosophy or doctrine of salvation, but he did warn his apostles against false prophets who would attempt to inveigle them into believing a false gospel (Matthew 7:15, 24:11, 24:24, Mark 13:22, Luke 6:26).

That’s what Jesus taught. His gospel message, authority to teach it, and orders for us to teach it are crystal clear throughout the Bible’s four gospel records of his life.

So where does Spurgeon get the goofy idea that trusting Christ’s bloody atonement as though it were a lifebuoy is what saves us? And precisely how does that mechanism work? How is it possible that God can be appeased by ordering the murder of his only-begotten son, a perfect being nearly his equal, as a sacrifice, and how does that atone for any sin at all? How is it logical that God would violate his second commandment “Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13) by ordering the senseless murder of his perfect son. What is it about a blood sacrifice that erases sin? Why should we believe God wants any kind of sacrifice to be made to him, as though he were some corrupt Mafia chief who could be bribed? What need does God have of a sacrifice from others when he is already infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and has everything?

To me it seems Spurgeon is tossing us a millstone dressed up like a lifebuoy, one that sinks to the bottom of the sea as soon as someone dumb enough to believe him grabs hold of it. His false notions about salvation are the kind of false prophesies against which Jesus warned his apostles, and they surely lead astray God’s children, especially the young children who trust preachers to tell them the uncomplicated truth. Both the Urantia Book and the Bible are very clear and emphatic about this:

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

The Urantia Book, Page 1761 - Entering Capernaum at twilight, they went by unfrequented thoroughfares directly to the home of Simon Peter for their evening meal. While David Zebedee made ready to take them across the lake, they lingered at Simon's house, and Jesus, looking up at Peter and the other apostles, asked: "As you walked along together this afternoon, what was it that you talked about so earnestly among yourselves?" The apostles held their peace because many of them had continued the discussion begun at Mount Hermon as to what positions they were to have in the coming kingdom; who should be the greatest, and so on. Jesus, knowing what it was that occupied their thoughts that day, beckoned to one of Peter's little ones and, setting the child down among them, said: "Verily, verily, I say to you, except you turn about and become more like this child, you will make little progress in the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever shall humble himself and become as this little one, the same shall become greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso receives such a little one receives me. And they who receive me receive also Him who sent me. If you would be first in the kingdom, seek to minister these good truths to your brethren in the flesh. But whosoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea. If the things you do with your hands, or the things you see with your eyes give offense in the progress of the kingdom, sacrifice these cherished idols, for it is better to enter the kingdom minus many of the beloved things of life rather than to cling to these idols and find yourself shut out of the kingdom. But most of all, see that you despise not one of these little ones, for their angels do always behold the faces of the heavenly hosts."

To be honest, Tommy, I don’t know why you feel the need to quote Spurgeon in your sermons. He’s not much of an authority on the gospel or the plan of salvation. In fact, he shows that he does not understand it at all.

Is It Infantile to Believe in God?

My friend Chuck, after reading my blog on Christianity, responded on July 13, 2005:

"Mankind would be better served if it grew up, abandoned its infantile beliefs in supernatural parents, and realized that we alone are responsible for our own destenies. Mankind should have outgrown its need for this nonsense Century's ago. More harm has been done in the name of 'religion' and tribal god-images than any other cause save for passion and material greed."

I responded as follows. Let me know what you think...

Chuck:

It is so good to hear from you, and I thank you for sharing your views with me.

I have an unswerving devotion to the pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness. Real religionists recognize that as a devotion to doing God’s will, and that could be seen as a devotion to seeking, finding, knowing, loving, becoming, and being like God.

Of course nobody has seen God, but it is logical that the first source and center of persons must himself be a person. And one of the main characteristics of personality is not only the ability to know God, but the ability to make and sincerely act upon moral decisions – doing the “right” thing to the best of one’s ability. It is insincere and hypocritical to do anything else.

You might therefore rightly consider that even though it is infantile to believe in supernatural parents, it is quite mature to believe in having a source of life and personality itself. Since the supreme source must itself be a person, what name would you give that person? I myself refer to him as my “Heavenly Father.”

Now Chuck, you have asserted that belief in “supernatural” parents is infantile. But I’m sure you agree that it is not infantile to believe in parents. I’m sure you also know that to the ignorant and immature child a parent seems very supernatural in nature, for the parent has apparently supernatural knowledge, wisdom, physical power, and mental power. The parent has provided a house, a car, food, clothing, and everything the child needs, including a genetic endowment that allows the child to grow.

You cannot, however, pretend to know that an earth parent is the source of either mind or personality, can you? There has never been proof of such a thing, and in fact there is significant evidence to indicate that your earth parents cannot be and are not the source of your mind and personality. The proof is that you are so much different from them in mental and personality expression, excepting of course the expressions you learned directly from them. Their personalities are their identities, just as you personality is uniquely yours. The only apparent mind-related endowment we get from our earth parents is intelligence, which is apparently genetic. I say it is apparent because exceptionally intelligent children are almost never born to stupid parents, and vice versa, but the children of intelligent parents are usually intelligent, whereas the children of stupid parents are usually stupid.

Back to the issue of supernatural, if a child thinks his natural earth parent is supernatural, that does not mean the parent is supernatural. Concomitantly, it is unreasonable to assert that the parent of your personality is supernatural. More realistically, the universal parent of personality must, by definition, be completely natural, not supernatural, but you are not yet mature enough to be fully aware of the power of that personality, nor of how that parent personality functions. In reality, therefore, you are just an immature “personality” and are “sub-natural,” while your personality parent is merely mature and wholly natural.

Would you be infantile for believing that? Its just a matter of perspective, Chuck.

Given that perspective, it is reasonable for us to see “God” as our Heavenly Father, and as his immature, sub-natural children, to seek to know him, communicate with him, and grow to be like him. That way we might someday evolve from being sub-natural to being natural, rather than (as you now might see it) to evolve from being natural to super-natural.

Get the idea?

Given the above considerations, doesn't it seem just a little infantile not to believe in God?

Bob

Claudia Cote, M.D., Selected as one of America’s Best Doctors

On June 29, 2005, research organization Best Doctors Inc selected pulmonologist Claudia Cote, M.D. as one of America’s best doctors. Dr. Cote is a critical care physician at the Bay Pines Veterans Administration Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida, a suburb of St. Petersburg.

As a veteran and a patient at the medical center, I have been receiving excellent clinical care for emphysema from Dr. Claudia Cote for more than 4 years. During that time I participated in a research program she conducted at Bay Pines that resulted in the release of an excellent new inhalant, tiotroprium bromide, that dilates bronchia and fights against lung infection. Dr. Cote’s care, follow-up, medications, and rehabilitation programs have enormously improved my quality of life and sense of well-being while reducing the dangers to my health of lung infections and inordinate worsening of my condition. In my opinion, she is an excellent physician, researcher, and clinician who deserves the respect and support of her colleagues and seniors.

Dr. Cote is as impeccably professional as she is caring and friendly. Her research projects have brought in over $1 million revenue to the medical center and helped thousands of veterans with pulmonary lung disease to get desperately needed high-quality relief. When any emergency arises, she gives prompt attention to resolve the problem. I have never knowm her to compromise ethical standards while giving veterans top priority.

Dr. Cote is well-educated, has published numerous papers on the findings of her research, and has significant breadth and depth of clinical experience, including emergency room medicine. She is well-qualified to be Chief of Medicine and Chief of Staff in the nation's top medical facilities. She has established a state-of-the-art rehabilitation program for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, ably coordinated by Eric Kalbfell, RRT (see July 2004 HealthPower article "Bay Pines VAMC Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program", http://www.nchpdp.med.va.gov/HealthPOWER/2004_July.pdf). According to patients who complete the program, results are excellent to the point of being "alarming."

Dr. Cote has been acknowledged for her professionalism by the St. Petersburg Times (http://sptimes.com).

• On 6 March 2004, Times reporter Paul de la Garza wrote of an incident in which one of Dr. Cote's seniors ordered her to sign an expired veteran's death certificate without first performing an autopsy to determine the cause of death, and Dr. Cote risked career problems by proceeding to get permission to do the autopsy anyway.

• Dr. Cote's dedication has continued unabated in spite of a workload and political pressures that have threatened her health and her career (See http://sptimes.com article by Paul de la Garza on 5 March 2005).

In 2004 Dr. Cote published a study with fellow researcher Dr. Bartolome Celli that documented methods of improving treatment of lung disease (http://www.healthcentral.com/newsdetail/408/517721.html). Details were published in the online edition of Postgraduate Medicine (http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2005/03_05/cote.htm - Cote CG, Celli BR. New treatment strategies for COPD: pairing the new with the tried and true. Postgrad Med 2005;117(3):27-34).

I am not the only one to recognize Dr. Claudia Cote as a “Pearl of Great Price” among her peers. Dr. Cote's professional competence and devotion to outstanding patient care have also impressed her colleagues. It was at the behest of her peers that Best Doctors, Inc., selected Dr. Cote, as one of the best doctors in America for 2005-2006.

The Best Doctors database consists of the top 5% of the nation's doctors, all of whom were selected nominated by peer review. According to Lucy Stec, Director of Research and Polling, Dr. Cote is one of only 378 new Best Doctors in the Tampa Bay area. Only physicians who are licensed, board-certified, and free of professional misconduct are allowed to be Best Doctors.

Best Doctors, Inc, has been publishing its Best Doctors list for individuals, corporations, and insurance companies since 1992, and adds new doctors every 18 months. For more details call 800-675-1100 or visit http://bestdoctors.com.

How to Ensure Positive Career Growth

1. You are more powerful than you think you are.When the deck seems stacked against you, it is wise to remember that a spirit fragment of our Heavenly Father indwells your mind, and that little piece of God is your constant companion throughout eternity.He is constantly guided you to achieve the most magnificent destiny possible for you.There can be no reasonable fear in the mind of one who seeks to know, love, and be like God, for there is not power on or off our world that can effectively combat the noble desires of a human being who is in companionship with and following the will of God.No temporary setback can hamstring a person of unbending intent to pursue truth, beauty, and goodness.
   
   
2. An organization’s only memory is in its files. If it isn’t written, it didn’t happen and it isn’t true. The wise worker therefore keeps a written record of goals, accomplishments, and events (including words and deeds by political allies and enemies) that help or hurt both, and takes a copy home. Similarly, the wise worker ensures the organization’s permanent files contain evidences of positive things related to his career.
   
3. A wise worker continually solicits written and signed “success stories” from juniors and clients or patients, having them evaluate quality of leadership or quality of client care rendered by the worker and/or his juniors. This allows the worker to build an undeniable portfolio of accomplishments that can be used to corroborate the worker’s claims of accomplishments.
   
4. A wise worker periodically (at least monthly) aggressively informs his seniors of his skills and accomplishments, and makes sure that at least two levels above his immediate senior are aware of those skills and accomplishments. Failing to do this is the number one reason workers get fired. The only effective way to do this is in the form of a written commendation signed by one’s immediate senior, even when seniors only want to write evaluations once a year. Thus, the wise worker writes up his own truthful commendation, noting objectives achieved, expectations met and exceeded, related external achievements, papers and books authored and published, recognitions, awards, certificates, and honors received in and out of the organization, notable achievements of juniors and of the “team”, citations and letters of recommendation or appreciation by juniors and clients.
   
5. A wise worker always seeks to expand knowledge, ability, control, and responsibility, and to make such ambitions and skills clearly known to seniors who will be beneficially affected by such expansion. Together these equal personal power. Anyone who is threatened by or jealous of such expansion can become a political enemy. A wise worker will identify such persons and find ways either to convert them into allies or limit their power to obstruct the worker’s growth. Once the skills requisite to a job have been mastered, the wise worker always demands more responsibility and more money.
   
6. A wise worker is never afraid to quit a job. An organization bent on hamstringing a worker’s power expansion and unwilling to provide more money and more responsibility to accommodate the worker’s reasonable growth requirements does not deserve to have the worker in the organization. There are always additional organizations ready and willing to pay more money and give more responsibility to a powerful worker. Thus, the biggest pay raises usually result from quitting or getting fired.
   
7. A wise worker networks to create allies who will support him in political conflicts. Senior-level workers retain a personal Public Relations professional to build a positive and visible public image, both written and photographic. Senior workers ensure political enemies and allies are kept informed of all positive image building incidents (news articles, published works, speaking engagements, conference attendances, charitable activities, etc).
   
8. A wise worker is punctual and keeps himself cheerful, well-groomed, physically fit, properly nourished, and sufficiently rested to “look good” and perform well. A wise worker always takes full annual vacation for relaxation, plus all discretionary days off in order to handle personal matters and reduce job stress, and a wise worker does not skip lunches. Time off and breaks during the work day are essential to keeping emotional and spiritual batteries charged.
   
9. When faced with determined political enemies or unreasonable organizational opposition, the wise worker seeks to determine who is behind the opposition, and the full range of the opponent’s accomplishments, sins, and personal power, identifying also the opponent’s allies. The wise worker will use allies and personal meetings with opponents to glean information about the nature of and reasons for the opposition, always maintaining a calm and respectful demeanor. Wise senior level workers will engage a private detective to unearth sins and errors of political opponents, then determine which of the discoveries to reveal in order to undermine the enemies’ position and turn them into “dead agents” (discredit them). The wise worker uses only such pressure against an opponent as necessary to terminate the opposition. The wise worker knows and uses the principle of “A head on a pike.”

In the above list there are four things worth doing as a matter of priority and urgency to your career.

1. Commendations.Immediately start writing your own commendations, and encourage your juniors to do the same, then present them to your immediate senior on the first day of each month, every month, without fail, and stand in the senior’s presence till the senior signs it.
   
   
2. Client Critiques.Immediately institute a “success story” program in which you and your staff hand a critique form to every single client for whom you care at the time you have finished delivering the care.The form lets the client rate you and your service on a scale of 1 to 10 in the areas you deem are important (friendliness, competence, efficiency, thoroughness, sense of well-being, relief from distress, etc) and asks for a simple narrative “success story” regarding the experience in your office.The patient always signs and dates it, and the name must be printed so it is legible. These forms are summarized at the end of each month, and the scores tallied. The information is used to identify areas of weakness (which your team starts working on) and strengths (which your team talks about proudly with other workers.)The monthly tallies, with a highlight of several of the best narratives, accompany the commendation.
   
   
3. P.R. Hire a Public Relations firm and locate allies in the organization who will spread the factual “rumors” of your success and achievements in the press and among senior staff.These become a huge needle to poke a hole in the balloon of opposition your opponents float around the organization to defame or defeat you.When opponents hear and see the evidence of your success and how others appreciate you, it demoralizes them, and makes them loathe to attack you for fear of looking like fools.It actually prevents much opposition that might otherwise be there.
   
   
4. Investigator. Hire a Private Detective or recruit spies to dig up the dirt on your political opponents and their supporters.It is axiomatic that someone who is opposing you wrongly and who is attempting to defeat you using dirty tricks is himself dirty in other ways, and that he is hiding that dirt.When you discover it, decide what to reveal to him, and tell him in no uncertain terms, but politely and diplomatically, that he is wronging you and your beneficial activities.If he does not relent, meet with him again and present to him one of the evidences against him, and suggest it would be a shame for that and others to be revealed to colleagues and to the press.The kinds of things the detective will find include professional incompetence, plagiarism (especially while in college, but also in published works), misrepresentation of credentials, cronyism and nepotism, financial misdeeds and fiscal irresponsibility at home or in a past job, broken agreements, spousal abuse, sexual misconduct, philandering, support of evil causes, suppression of good causes, arrest history, and criminal history.Organizational executives almost never want these things revealed to their colleagues and public.
   
   

Parris Sneers at at the corrupt jackasses of Africa

I write in response to Matthew Parris’ 2 July 2005 opinion article “We must all sneer and scoff at the corrupt, cruel jackasses of Africa” at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1677350_1,00.html.

Parris said “A ruling class of greedy men, sheltered by a popular culture of gawping passivity in the face of political swagger, is suffocating the people of Africa and neither tears nor money nor rock music should be our first response. Rage, not rock, is called for…. “Governance” does not need to be created, but reformed, and there are men and women there capable of doing it.”
He could have said the same of America. And he should have. Here’s why.

Africa’s problem is almost identical to that of IberoAmerica – a ruling class dominates and almost everyone else is in poverty. Almost means it’s worse in Africa, and if it weren’t for the fact that Amerindian and Mestizo anti-apartheid outrage have not yet managed to overthrow their ruling class of whites or near whites they so fervently hate, it would be much worse than it is.

Unfortunately for Africa, white governance there is nearly ancient history, and that is its problem, thanks to the politically correct liberal elitists of America pressuring the government of South Africa into dropping apartheid practices that made the country a decent place to live and work.

The root of the African problem is one of IQ, a reality that Parris conveniently ignores. According to the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, the average IQ of African Blacks is 70. American psychometrists consider that to be the upper boundary of “moron.” Thanks to American culture, food, education, and genetic enrichment of the Black race, to the extent American Blacks have availed themselves of it, the average IQ of American Blacks is 85, a full standard deviation higher, but still a full standard deviation lower than the average American Caucasian IQ of 100. Only 16% of American Blacks have an IQ as high as 100. It is no wonder they cannot compete for the better jobs and better mates in America. Were they transported from America to the land of their ancestry, they might actually come to dominate their relatively stupid cousins who are African natives.

However, I doubt it.

Because of their low-IQ, Black people always have been, are now, and always will be pathetically miserable at self-government. Any self-government they evolve without the help of White, Indian, or Oriental overlords will be corrupt, brutal, and a miscarriage of justice. That is because the people are too stupid to build social and economic infrastructure that enable them to earn decent livings. So they live in poverty, and as in America, many resort to crime in order to get by. Unfortunately for most of them, and unlike in America, there is no monthly welfare check for impoverished African Blacks. For this reason, they elect only corrupt politicians, if they elect any at all, politicians who promise them a hand-out. Sound familiar? Sound anything like the government of Arkansas, Mississippi, the USA, or the UK?

Parris conjectures “there are men and women there capable of doing it.”

Really? So what? Most Black African natives who actually are smart enough to rule (and there are so few) have a political axe to grind or their personal pockets to line with public money. They might be capable, but they are systemically corrupt. That is a direct result of having a population of low IQ. When the stupid are allowed to vote, they always vote for stupid things. Parris would do well to remember that Intelligence Quotient is the measure of one’s ability to solve problems. Problems are solved by making wise choices and then acting on them wisely. Africa’s average IQ of 70 prevents both wise choices and wise actions unless people of high IQ rule without regard to the choices of the low-IQ public.

Parris suggests “Governance… be… reformed.”

In Africa? Fat chance. Stupid people cannot possibly evolve a superior civilization. As proven by the lesson of South Africa, Rhodesia, and the Belgian Congo, stupid people, handed the elements of a superior civilization, will trample those elements underfoot and strive to eliminate their benefactors. Given a decent city to live in, Blacks will quickly concentrate into an area and convert it into a ghetto, then into a drug-infested, crime-ridden war zone in which the major victims are Black. This is just as true of Compton and East Los Angeles, California, as it is of Soweto in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Parris is right, though. We should have no more pity for Africa, no more than we should have for the stupid and lazy of America or England who threaten riot an mayhem if the government doesn’t give them handouts.

Of course, you can rightly ask “Who is ‘we’?” It’s not me and you. It’s the demagogue politicians who are only so glad to rob from the rich so as to give to the poor and thereby buy votes. That is because America has established a kind of republic that values the vote of a stupid and ignorant welfare recipient as the equal of a Nobel laureate, Army General, or Fortune 500 Chairman of the Board. Actually, it is because America allows the indigent and those on the dole to vote at all.

In most of Africa, however, that doesn’t matter at all. As Josef Stalin so ably clarified, “It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.” You don’t need to guess who counts them in Africa.


Sincerely,

Bob Hurt

Harvey, Slavery, Nukes, Genocide

I am writing regarding Paul Harvey’s June 23 monologue in which he lamented America’s failure to be tough on terrorism, and the Baltimore Chronicle’s associated 5 July 2005 Action Alert posted at http://baltimorechronicle.com/070505FAIR.shtml and at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569 (see below).

I salute Paul Harvey for making such a valid point about the importance of using nukes to accomplish military goals while minimizing loss of life by American soldiers. I denounce the elitist apologist for terrorism who wrote the Action Alert. Harvey is incisive and accurate in his assessment of the abuse of American military power by sending soldiers to die when nukes can obviate conventional war in one fell swoop.

By contrast, his detractor, FAIR’s author of the alert, is deluded. Being all too willing to decry nuclear bombs that wipe out evil people, he seems unable to come to grips with the real team of questions:

1. How many enemy human lives is the life of one American soldier worth?
2. Is it right for individuals who should be showing mercy to empower government to destroy enemies?
3. Should a people be held accountable for the iniquity of their secular or religious rulers?
4. Is Islam a religion of peace or not?
5. Can nukes be beneficial in modern times?
6. Is Paul Harvey genocidal?
7. What are the benefits of war?

Harvey submitted the ultimate answer. I shall address the reasoning.

1. The worth of human life.
   
   The life of one American soldier is definitely worth an indeterminate number of enemy live. The whole idea of maintaining a military is to prevent enemies from oppressing, robbing, torturing, terrorizing, or murdering Americans. When an entire nation is devoted to such behavior, most particularly when exemplified by like the 9-11-2001 destruction, that nation’s people deserve to be wiped out, without the loss of a single American life. Even if it means nuking the place.
   
   Naturally, the best way to avoid such an offensive retribution is to establish an impenetrable defense through which enemies have no opportunity to hurt Americans. Maybe America, if it still exists after playing pattycake for centuries with Muslim terrorists and those who tolerate or support them, will get around to that in the next millennium.
   
2. Empowering government
   
   Individuals in a nation, while encouraged by all benign religions to show mercy to wrongdoers and love for enemies, have the right to live in relative peace and tranquility. Working together, they elect representatives of their wiser members who draft a constitution and form a government that has as one of its purposes the obligation to provide for common defense of the people. Governments like ours are thus empowered by their people to engage in war if and as necessary to defend our people.
   
   As horrific as was the nuking of Japan 60 years ago next month, it did save a lot of money, and not one American G.I. was lost in the process. As we all know, Japan became peaceful immediately, and the world has enjoyed liberty from Japanese oppression ever since. In addition, post war stability has been guaranteed by the presence of American military in Japan for the past 60 years, and by the fact that Japan has not been allowed to build a massive military.
   
3. Are people accountable for the wrongs of their rulers?
   
   People must be held accountable for the wrongdoings of their rulers. Other than the rulers, no one else can be held accountable. Only a people or a foreign entity has the potential to make a ruler rule rightly. Since the people are the ruled, the responsibility is theirs to ensure their rulers are righteous, or otherwise to depose them. This is true even if the ruler is a brutal despot who kills everyone who gets out of line. The people of a land are still responsible to erect a benign government. And if they cannot do it, if the ruler is a war monger and despot, then they deserve and should expect whatever horrible fate befalls them.
   
   Let us not think that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorist acts against America. As abundantly proved by http://judicialwatch.org, his agents planned and financed the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. The people of Iraq allowed him to rise to power, stay in power, conduct an 8-year, no-win war against Iran, and murder tens of thousands of his nation’s people throughout a 30-year reign of terror. While it was he who spearheaded those acts, it was the people of Iraq who by their complacency or incompetence empowered him. And it is they who are thereby at fault, just as the people of Afghanistan were at fault for empowering the Taliban, and through them, Al Quaeda, to destroy American lives and property.
   
   So, had USA government opted to nuke Najaf, Fallujah, and Tikrit and demand unconditional surrender before sending troops into the country, it would have been well within the USA’s right and reason to do so. Had the same thing been done in Afghanistan, Usama bin Laden might no longer be plotting the destruction of the people and property of America and its allies.
   
   After all, the people are responsible for the misdeeds they allow from their rulers. As such, they are not really “innocent,” even if they are being brutally oppressed by their rulers. In such a circumstance, it is their responsibility to shoulder their arms and overthrow their iniquitous government. That has happened twice in the history of the USA, and both times it was very costly in terms of life and property. It might be tough, but ultimately, unless helped by an outside nation, citizens have no other choice but to try.
   
4. Is Islam Peaceful?
   
   Islam is not peaceful, and it is only partly a religion. It is both a religion and a malignant political force to all who resist it. This has been proven not only by the past 14 centuries of Muslim conquest of a fifth of the world’s land mass, but also by ongoing efforts by Muslims in India, Kashmir, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines, Somalia, Chechnya, and numerous other areas of the world to destroy existing government and supplant it with dictatorial Islamic regimes. All truly Islamic states are dominated by an un-elected power structure. All are theocracies or just plain dictatorships. And all oppress their people.
   
   Until an Islamic government has been established, Muslim militants attack an existing government or its supporters in any way necessary to gain power.
   Both the example of Muhammad and his recital in the Qur’an gives Muslim militants (terrorists) carte blanch to oppress, torture, murder, and wage war against unbelievers. Of course, the Qur’an also double-speaks by encouraging individuals to show mercy and kindness to others. As a guiding document, therefore, the Qur’an encourages Muslims to do just about anything they please to infidels who resist Islam, be it peaceful or pugnacious. Thus, it guides wrong-headed Muslims to commit acts of terror.
   
   Islamic law also imposes radical and unfair social regulation on its adherents. Such law may be egregiously implemented as it was by the Taliban, or done somewhat moderately as it is in Saudi Arabia. Either way, it is a travesty in a modern world because it encourages the treatment of women as though they were chattel, the ownership of slaves, the requirement to exercise religious practices that should be a matter of personal and private choice, and oppression, robbery, torture, and murder of non-Muslims who resist Islamic rule.
   
   Islam cuts across national boundaries. Even though the focal point of Islam is Saudi Arabia (all good Muslims bow facing Saudi Arabia and pray 5 times a day), the “nation” of Islam has no earth territory, and its soldiers wear no uniforms. They see themselves as being authorized and commanded by God to eliminate any non-Muslims who resist Islam, and to do so by any means necessary. While there are many peaceable Muslims in the world, the truth is that virtually all terrorists in the world today are Muslims.
   
   The world cannot go on tolerating Islamic terrorism. Just as the people of a nation are responsible for the misdeeds of their rulers, so are the people of Islam responsible for the misdeeds of fellow Muslims who oppress, rob, torture, murder, and destroy in the name of Allah. It is up to them to take responsibility for and reign in their errant fellow Muslims. And since Muslim terrorists get their marching orders from the Qur’an, it is up to the benign Muslims of the world to take the Qur’an in hand, and excise from it all elements that even remotely suggest by word or example that Muslims are right in behaving hatefully toward others in the name of God, Muhammad, or anyone else.
   
5. Can Nukes be beneficial?
   
   Tactical nukes (neutron bombs) can be quite clean. They eliminate people without destroying too much property (except right at ground zero). A nuclear bomb is the most effective way of eliminating a nest of bad people. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, nukes should have preceded conventional bombing by several weeks. And, I believe one should have been dropped on Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, quite close to the Kabba. Here are the reasons:
   
   a. It would have made a serious point to the rest of the world, and to Islamic enemies of America: the same thing will happen to you if you don’t knock off the terrorism, next we take out your religious centers and every government that supports Islamic law.
   b. America will not allow an Islamic theocracy to exist without being held accountable for Islamic terrorism worldwide because such regimes always support terrorism, and America will not tolerate terrorism.
   c. We would not have the pain and suffering of thousands of our own dead and wounded soldiers, and the attendant family difficulties to deal with. As all past wars have proven, soldiers are permanently shaken up by combat, and the aftermath often causes a breakup of their families an numerous other social problems.
   d. It would have saved a lot of money. It is far cheaper to send in some nukes than to mobilize an invasion force. Yes, the force would have to be sent in anyway, but the bulk of enemy troops could have been taken out beforehand.
   e. We should do everything possible to reduce the loss of American life and property while at the same time driving for victory.
   
   
6. Is Paul Harvey genocidal?
   
   As for FAIR’s slimy insinuation that Harvey is in favor of genocide, I’m certain Harvey will ignore him. I won’t, though. It looks like a little history lesson is in order.
   
   It really is a shame that the crème of the red race was wiped out over 500 years of conquest by Europeans and Euro-Americans. Any honest student of history knows that the red race was characterized by an intense spirituality and racial pride (many called themselves “human beings”), and a concomitant intensity in hostility. Amerindians were so bellicose they could not get along with each other, much less the white man. That is why they never evolved any advanced system of government, and never progressed beyond the tribal stage, which is where most of their descendants still are. Their unwillingness or inability to be more socially harmonious prevented the development of wise representative government. Along with that, Amerindians did not evolve social systems that stimulated growth of education, literature, research, discovery, science, and technology. Until the 1800s, none of them had a written language, and that is the main reason we learn very little from our archeological digs in their concentrations of civilization.
   
   These factors conspired to make the Amerindians weaker militarily than Europeans and Euro-Americans. Their pride made them unwilling to serve the white man. They were unable to beat the white man in war. They refused to get along with the white man. The inevitable result was the destruction of the best of the red race. Only the dregs remain. That is a tragic loss to America’s gene pool.
   
   Europeans wiped out most of the Amerindians they contacted through either disease or war. At first the spreading of disease was accidental, but after the invaders discovered how badly it affected the Amerindians, they used it as a weapon. I doubt that anyone exposed to the constant threat of antagonism, terrorism and war by Amerindians blamed anyone for the use of any weapon that would bring permanent relief. That was not as much an effort to wipe out a race of people as much as it was an effort to wipe out an enemy group that had such an opposing culture. Naturally, the white people associated the culture with the race because no other racial group dressed and behaved the way Amerindians did.
   
   The same is virtually true in America today regarding the differences between Caucasians and Negroes. Certain styles of dress, speech, behavior, and naming children do stereotypically characterize non-professional inner city Negroes as being Negroes, even though they were reared in the same civilization as other Negroes who are professionals and choose to behave and dress as elite Caucasians. Naturally, many if not most Caucasians find Ebonics, jailbird music (rap), and jailbird attire (pants falling down because of no belt), all of which are stereotypical of inner city Negroes, to be loathsome. Fortunately, the news media does not tout stories of Negroes getting killed over it, so there’s little danger of genocide erupting as a result.
   
   What Paul Harvey pointed out is that any kind of weapon that gets rid of masses of enemies at one shot is a worthy weapon in war, and only a fool prefers to see his fellow countrymen killed in a conventional war rather than to use that worthy weapon. Harvey did not promote genocide. That genocide might be the result is merely coincidental.
   
7. What are the benefits of war?
   
   FAIR seems most averse to discussing the benefits of war. Unless one frankly faces the benefits, one cannot face the question of how to achieve those same benefits by peaceful means.
   
   War is another facet of the law of the survival of the fittest acknowledged by Charles Darwin. And, it is a means of achieving not just survival (its main benefit) but optimum survival.
   
   Some of the legitimate benefits include:
   
   Eliminating people and the governments they support who are hostile to you
   Unifying an area in which no enemies exist and you can travel without danger
   Gaining booty (land, money, riches, slaves, and other assets) by conquest
   Earning future revenues from the conquered people or their assets
   Discouraging other enemy people from attacking you
   Providing expansion room for your own people
   Spreading your religion
   Spreading your genes or enriching your gene pool
   Eliminating threats to your gene pool
   
   You might consider that modern national and international laws make it illegal to conduct wars, particularly for genetic reasons, as though there is no such thing as inferior or superior genetic groups. If you think this, you are wrong. A people’s prime responsibility is to improve the lot of future generations, and that can only be done by wise and continual efforts to enrich the gene pool. There are many ways to do this, including the adoption of wise and benign eugenics laws that encourage citizens with the average and better genes to meet, marry, and procreate. Suppressing the procreation of the inferior and degenerate is also a good way.
   
   You see, any intelligent people intuitively know that if a group with an average IQ 30 points below the average IQ of their group is allowed to emigrate and procreate without restraint, the emigrants will thereby dumb-down the gene pool. If you look at the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations you find that the average IQ of Italians is 102, and the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa is 70 (considered by psychologists to be the upper boundary of moron). Italians would be, therefore, insane to invite sub-Saharan Africans into their country to mate and procreate with their people, unless, of course they felt that they themselves were too smart for their own good (I know lots of Italians and never met one who felt that way or didn’t want to be smarter).
   
   And note that IQ, the ability to solve problems, is only one measure of a people’s ability to build an advanced and benign civilization. Aptitude for science, engineering, music, literature, religion, philosophy, family, business, and military strategy are also important measures, as is physical and mental soundness and strength. A people have a right and responsibility to themselves and the rest of the world to foster the good characteristics and suppress the bad, even if harsh legislation or war is required to do so.
   
   Our laws prevent us from applying the law of the survival of the fittest in willy-nilly fashion. Because of that, our humanity demands that we find humane, diplomatic, and forthright ways of accomplishing the benefits that the outlawed law of the survival of the fittest would otherwise provide.
   
   The law of the survival of the fittest demands that when a superior civilization meets an inferior one, it retain the best of the one it finds for gene pool enrichment and eliminate the rest. In the past, the conqueror would murder or enslave the defeated, and as a result of not doing it intelligently, produce even more problems. For one thing, slaves eventually get absorbed into the gene pool, often deteriorating it. For another, war usually slaughters the fittest soldiers, the ones whom it is most important genetically to keep alive for gene pool enrichment and future conquests. And always in war, the most inferior and degenerate are usually adept at hiding or keeping a low profile, so they are not eliminated.
   
8. How do we establish laws that achieve the benefits of the law of the survival of the fittest and of war?
   
   First of all, we have to discuss it rationally with intent to identify the truths in the issue. Ignoring it or pretending anyone who raises the subject is Hitler in disguise, as most liberal elitists do, solves nothing. Meanwhile, it allows our civilization to slide into a decline from which it could be impossible to climb.
   
   I’m going to leave this question unanswered, for that is not the purpose of my commentary. My purpose is to illustrate the reality that war does provide benefits, and that until our leaders start discussing ways to achieve them peacefully, and then frankly face and sincerely act up the findings, it is delusional to complain about how wars are conducted and whether nukes should be employed.

The point here is that war is a horrible, terrible recourse to the inability to resolve international differences peaceably. Sometimes it is the only alternative to oppression, robbery, torture, murder, and destruction at the hands of an enemy. There is no question that Islamic terrorists are the enemy of America, Israel, and every other non-Islamic government in the world that resists them. It might be considered somewhat genocidal to contemplate exterminating all Islamic terrorists, but so what? What right do they have to live while they are intent on hurting others just because they think God authorizes or commands it?

Of all kinds of wars, lobbing a huge nuke or two into an enemy land might seem to some to be the most terrible, but I don’t think it is. Had America been able to use the nukes at the beginning of the war with Japan, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would not have been wounded or killed, and many American families would have been saved the associated cost and horror. Saving our own lives and property was well worth the death and destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As General George Patton once remarked, the idea of war is not to give your life for your country, but to get as many of the enemy as possible to give their lives for their country. That’s what war is all about. And that’s what nukes do.

I am guessing Paul Harvey thinks it is wrong to agree to or abide by the Geneva convention’s outlawing of torture and weapons of mass destruction that kill innocent civilians as well as enemy combatants. If he does, I agree with him.

The only rule of war should be to win it as fast and cheaply as possible with as little loss of your own money, property, and life as possible. If the enemy doesn’t like it, let him behave decently.



Sincerely,
Bob Hurt

------------------------------------

ACTION ALERT:Paul Harvey's Tribute to Slavery, Nukes, GenocideHateful rant shows Disney's double standard on speechJuly 1, 2005Disney/ABC radio personality Paul Harvey, one of the most widely listened to commentators in the United States, presented his listeners on June 23 with an endorsement of genocide and racism that would have been right at home on a white supremacist shortwave broadcast.Harvey's commentary began by lamenting the decline of American wartime aggression. "We're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies--more moral, more civilized," he said. Drawing a contrast with what he cast as the praiseworthy nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Harvey lamented that "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos"--suggesting that America should have used its nuclear arsenal in its invasions of both countries.Harvey concluded:"We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever."And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."Harvey's evident approval of slavery, genocide and nuclear and biological warfare would seem to put him at odds with Disney's family-friendly image. The media conglomerate syndicates Harvey to more than 1,000 radio stations, where he reaches an estimated 18 million listeners. Disney recently signed a 10-year, $100 million contract with the 86-year-old Harvey.In 2004, Disney forbid its Miramax subsidiary to distribute Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, even though Miramax was the principal investor in the film. A Disney executive told the New York Times (5/5/04) that it was declining to distribute the film because, in the paper's words, "Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film...could alienate many."One wonders whether Disney executives are worried about alienating families who oppose slavery, nuclear war and Native American genocide.ACTION:Ask Disney why it finds Paul Harvey's nostalgia for slavery and genocide and his calls for nuclear war acceptable, but deemed Michael Moore's film unacceptable.

Questions about Islam

To Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Professor of Islamic Studies
The George Washington University

Professor Nasr:

I’ve been listening to your Modern Scholar course on Islam and the West, and while I find it interesting and informative, I am nagged with questions that no ordinary Muslim seems able or willing to answer. So I am writing to you in the hope that you can answer my questions.

I am not Muslim in respect to embracing the tenets of the religion of Islam, most particularly not Islamic law and Islam as a political and social regulatory force. However, I am a Muslim in respect to being devoted to a pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness in life, what you might call “doing God’s will,” and I do recognize much good in the religion of Islam. Therefore, I am not an antagonist, I am a sincere student of Islam, and I am eager to learn more about it. In fact, I have read the Qur’an at least once, and much of it several times.

As for my earlier background, I was reared as a Baptist and have studied most of the world’s major religions in some depth. But I do not consider myself to be a Christian. Rather, I am primarily a student of The Urantia Book (for the past 33 years), and I consider myself to be a follower of Jesus, embracing his religion instead of a religion about him.

Now, here are my questions. I encourage you to answer them before reading my comments below:

1. What are the principles of Jesus’ “gospel”, which Muhammad encouraged all Muslims to embrace? Where are they in the Qur’an?
2. From whom did Muhammad learn about the gospel and the principles of Christianity?
3. How do Jesus and Muhammad compare in character and nature, according to the Qur’an and recorded history?
4. Is every single word in the Qur’an considered to be a sacred recital of words spoken by Gabriel to Muhammad, and if not, what portions are not sacred recitals?

Here are my motives for asking (I shall be expressing my considerations, opinions, and research findings, and I encourage you to correct my misunderstandings):

1. What is the Gospel?

I have searched both the Bible and the Qur’an for an enumeration of the points of the gospel, and none is there. Both Jesus and Muhammad, however, implored others to embrace the gospel. The Urantia Book goes into considerable detail about the gospel, but of course Christians and Muslims do not consider The Urantia Book to be authoritative, so when I talk to Christians and Muslims it is important that I use as my sources of encouragement the respective texts they consider to be holy.

Since the Qur’an is does not purport itself to be a restatement or recission of the “Book” (Old Testament) or the “Gospel” (Biblical recounting of the life and teachings of Jesus), but rather it presents only summaries of some of the salient points of both, I do not see how the Qur’an could be considered an accurate or replete source of information about the gospel. Until 1955 there was no credible published work that enumerated the points of the gospel, and only the New Testament of the Bible could serve as a source. We must assume therefore that the gospel is recounted in Jesus’ teachings according to the Bible, to the extent allowed by its ancient editors, and attempt to unearth its points by a careful study.

My study has revealed the following major tenets of the gospel:

1. Acceptance of the reality of the Fatherhood of God.
2. Belief in the truth of the Brotherhood of Man.
3. Faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to be like God, to do his will.

The Urantia Book corroborates the above A B Cs of the gospel.

Why were these good news to the Jews of Jesus’ day, and why are they good news to Muslims? Here is what I think, and note that even the gospel Jesus taught to the multitudes was a step down from the advanced spiritual truths he taught his close associates. These points correspond to the A B Cs above.

1. Neither Jews nor Muslims actually see God as a Heavenly Father. Rather, they see him as an all-powerful deity who will crush them for their sins and misdeeds if they are unrepentant or iniquitous. Yes, they both claim God loves his human subjects, but they do not think of him as a loving Father. Jesus actually taught that a spirit fragment of the Heavenly Father indwells people’s minds and yearns for them to follow his leading. This implies the potential of divinity in human beings who seek to find, know, love, and be like God.
2. Neither Jews nor Muslims actually believe all other humans are their siblings. Jews believe only fellow Jews are their “neighbors,” and Muslims believe only fellow Muslims are “brothers.” Yes, they both claim it is right to love other people, but they do not really feel a divine mandate to love them as though they are brothers. By contrast with brotherly love, which Jesus preached to the multitudes, Jesus taught his close associates about Fatherly love, and elevation in quality of relationship to fellow humans.
3. Neither Jews, Christians, or Muslims actually believe humans can be like God. Most Christians assert man inherited a sin nature from Adam and Eve, and can never have fellowship with God unless they accept the notion that his crucifixion constituted a blood sacrifice that atones for sins. Jews are mostly silent on the subject because many, if not most, of them don’t even believe in an afterlife. Muslims actually believe God makes people be evil and makes them reject him, as though they have no choice in the matter. Jesus taught the multitudes that they should strive for personal perfection, and he did not focus on punishment that might be in store for them if they made mistakes. Rather, he focused on the good that would happen to them if they were righteous. He taught his close associates that humans are potentially divine, and that with his approval they can go on to meet the Father face to face.

Note the last sentences in each itemized paragraph above. These are the elevated principles Jesus did not teach the multitudes, but they are nevertheless advanced tenets of the gospel. I am certain you can see why they are such good news. Thinking of God as a father helps people feel they live in a friendly universe where they are expected and encouraged to be good, and they have a blood bond to their creator. Thinking of all people as siblings (or, better yet, as beloved children) inspires people to be tolerant of the faults of their fellows, to love them, and to serve them unselfishly and lovingly. This makes the universe seem to be even more friendly and living in it to be a joy. Thinking the desire to be like God will eventually make people more like him inspires people to show God’s (the Father’s) loving nature to all other people, and to anticipate the power-personality synthesis that results from becoming more like god.

Aside from reiterating the good news of the gospel, I am suggesting in the above comments that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are generally ignorant of the ABC points of that gospel, and so they really don’t get the “good news”. Both Christians and Muslims claim ardently to be believers in and followers of the gospel. However, if you ask any Christian or Muslim to enumerate those points, you will not get cogent, intelligent, direct answers. Many Christians, when asked about the gospel, will present their opinions about the atonement doctrine (believe in Jesus as savior or burn in hell), or say “open your heart to Jesus.” Muslim, however, never even discuss the gospel.

I personally believe this is the major cause of the problems in Christianity and Islam. They give lip service to principles they do not understand and cannot explain, and they are not really imbued with the spiritual verve an embrace of that good news can bring them. Were they able to enumerate the gospel’s points as I have above, they might find a major common point of agreement between the two religions which does not now exist, and thereby they might begin a process of uniting under that gospel. After all, teaching the gospel was the reason for Jesus’ public ministry, and Muhammad pointedly warned his readers that humiliation was in store for those who do not heed the gospel. If you believe the account in the four books of the bible that tell about Jesus’ life, the spirit presence of God appeared as an apparition and on two occasions told those within hearing range “This is my beloved son. Heed him.” Yes, I am aware that Muhammad said Jesus was not God’s son. He was speaking about a genetic, physical son. Since he also claimed that Jesus came from the “Spirit of God,” obviously he believed Jesus was God’s spiritual offspring. According to Jesus’ gospel, of course, we are all God’s children.

Does that make sense to you?

2. How did Muhammad learn about Jesus?

Muhammad does not explain in the Qur’an how he came to learn about Jesus. If you accept his account, he was simply reciting what Gabriel had told him. However, I recently read that a Syrian Christian taught Muhammad about Jesus. I personally consider that to be quite likely, regardless of what Gabriel said. My question is: who was his teacher here on earth? Here’s why I ask:

In working to help enlighten Christians about the gospel, I encounter enormous resistance. Most of them, particularly the preachers, believe the so-called apostle Paul was the one charged with bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, and of course they believe he did so accurately. I believe differently, however, and the proof is in the New Testament for any honest researcher to discover. Paul explained that he went temporarily blind on the road to Damascus, was told by the heavenly voice of Jesus to go to Damascus and get further instructions, then went to Arabia, then back to Damascus, then to Jerusalem where he met Peter and Jesus’ brother James, then back to Damascus where he spent 3 years before starting his missionary work. He singularly failed to explain where he went in Arabia, why he went, and what he learned.

It seems likely to me that the instructions he received in Damascus were to go to Arabia and Jerusalem to learn the gospel from Jesus’ former apostles. Which of them might have been in Arabia, and where in Arabia would they have been? I believe the two apostles who went to Arabia were Andrew (elected to be the leader of Jesus’ 12 apostles), and Abner (the head apostle for John the Baptist and mentioned in The Urantia Book). Andrew escaped the persecutions in Jerusalem by going to Philadelphia, the last “foreign” town in which Jesus preached before returning to the area of Jerusalem to resurrect Lazarus and be crucified. He had been well received in Philadelphia. What is Philadelphia? It is present day Amman, Jordan, and it was outside the jurisdiction of the Temple leaders and secular leaders of the Jews, so Andrew would have been safe there.

The Urantia Book explains that Andrew and Abner founded a church in Philadelphia that was loyal to the teachings of Jesus, and it survived, sending missionaries throughout Arabia, until it was overrun by Muslim armies early in the 7^th century. Most likely it was a missionary from Philadelphia who met with and taught Muhammad.

Why is this relevant? Well, it explains a number of inconsistencies in the biblical record. Since Paul said nothing about what he learned in Philadelphia, we must assume he disagreed with what he was taught. John Mark, the lad who had been closely associated with Jesus and his apostles for 4 years, abandond Paul in Paul’s first missionary journey, probably because he disagreed with Paul’s teachings. And Paul did in fact teach a very strange set of cult beliefs about the relevance of Jesus’ death. He was the author of the atonement doctrine that I find so alien and pagan in nature. Jesus never taught the atonement doctrine, and Abner, Andrew, and John Mark all knew it. Therefore, Paul refused to reveal anything about the gospel teachings he learned in Philadelphia.

Even the book of Revelation (John Zebedee’s vision) reveals in the 3^rd chapter that Jesus was fully pleased with only one of the seven churches mentioned - the church in Philadelphia, founded by Andrew. He found some fault with the others, all of which had been established by Paul.

Now, since the rank and file Christians during the days of Muhammad’s early life were of a more Greek Orthodox persuasion, overly honoring Mary as the “mother of God,” pushing a convoluted concept of the Trinity, claiming Jesus was the second person of that Trinity, and giving the gospel short shrift, and since the missionaries from Philadelphia, being loyal to the gospel, disagreed with them, therefore, naturally, the missionary who taught Muhammad told him of the disagreement and complained about the faults in their doctrines. Interestingly, in the Qur’an Muhammad denounced Christians for precisely those shortcomings, and in his denunciation he made it apparent that some Christians acutally believed correctly. Who would those correct Christians be? The ones in Philadelphia, of course. It is a shame that he sent his Muslim warriors into the last bastion of the gospel on earth and destroyed the church from which missionaries of that gospel had been sent to teach him.

I want to corroborate my theories about this. Therefore, I would like to know what other information is available regarding Muhammad’s Christian teacher(s), where I can find it, and what it says. Do you know of any scholarly works that deal with this subject?

I believe Muhammad was correct in denouncing parts of the written record of Jesus’ life and the incorrect following of Paul rather than Jesus by most Christians. Some of the four gospel records in the bible were edited to make them seem more consistent with Paul’s fraudulent concept of the plan of salvation and his false gospel. This is evident from the fact that fundamentalist Christians pick two or three references to blood and ransom as the sole proofs of the atonment doctrine in Jesus’ comments. Even those, however, they misconstrue to make them fit what they want to believe.

3. Comparing Jesus with Muhammad

Although Muslims say they honor Jesus, I do not understand what they mean by this. I also do not understand why Muslims do not elevate Jesus way above Muhammad in honor. The reason is the accumulation of testimony in the Qur’an about both Muhammad and Jesus, not to mention the biblical record of Jesus’ life and teachings, and other historical writings about Muhammad.

To begin with, there is no human-recorded eye-witness history of Jesus life and teachings outside the first five books of the Bible’s New Testament.

However, there is a considerable record of historical commentary about Muhammad’s life and teachings. These indicate Muhammad had a villainous side to him, albeit perhaps justifiable by the circumstances. He did send his warriors out to raid, loot, and murder settlements of people who were, by and large, innocent. And there is no question that Islam has been spread for the past 14 centuries at the point of a sword or barrel of a gun by Muslim warriors following Muhammad’s example. These facts are indisputable, and they early raids of looting and murder are corroborated by Muhammad’s comments in the Qur’an. In fact, fatwahs and testimony from numerous Muslim clerics about the Qur’an’s support of of holy jihad (actually, acts of war and terrorism) against infidels (non-Muslims) are the basis for the use of oppression, robbery, torture, murder, terrorism, and war against non-Muslims in the world today. This would not look so bad were it not for the fact that Muhammad set the example for this behavoir himself, and in numerous places in the Qur’an, he encourages it.

Ignoring the biblical record of Jesus’ life, and focusing only on Muhammad’s comments in the Qur’an, we see that Muhammad claimed Jesus was a magnificent, honorable, noble, peace-loving, man. Muhammad claimed Jesus was born from the spirit of God, physically born from a virgin, that he himself was a creator, healer, and miracle worker, that he was a prophet, that he brought the gospel to people, that he was closely associated with God, that he ascended to heaven after being resurrected from the dead, and that he will be the judge on judgment day.

The only such characteristic Muhammad claimed about himself was that he was a messenger who received Allah’s words from Gabriel.

That is quite a comparison! Muhammad was a messenger, but otherwise there was nothing holy about him, and he did not get his messages directly from God.

If you believe the biblical account of Jesus, it exalts Jesus only slightly more than does the Qur’an. It indicates Jesus was a spiritual son of God, that he actually communicated directly with God, that he promoted and practice only peace among people and unselfish loving service to others, and that he has “all power in heaven and earth,” whatever that means.

Thus, both Muhammad and the bible grandly elevated Jesus in divine and human status above Muhammad, and this is clear from Islam’s holiest of books, a book you have said is to Muslims what Christ is to Christianity. And yet, Muslims, in their personal beliefs and practices, ignore what Jesus taught and how he lived his life, and focus exclusively on Muhammad, what he taught, and how he lived his life. This seems to me to be very strange, particularly in view of the fact that Muhammad was, according to recorded history and the Qur’an, a war-monger and a promoter of terrorism, while Jesus was a committed man of peace and good will to all. How can Muslims do this in good conscience, given the magnificent claims Muhammad made about Jesus and his gospel in the Qur’an?

Summary and Conclusions

I have presented questions with background considerations that provoke those questions because they demand hard-core answers that are truthful, not an effort to skirt the truth. I hope you can shed some light on the answers, for I know there is much good in Islam.

I think Dar al Islam and Dar al Christianity would both be better of if the adherents of these religions do what both of their head prophets told them to: heed the gospel, live the gospel, and spread the gospel to everyone in the world.

The only way Islam will ever be reformed from the somewhat evil political force that seeks to make women into virtual chattel, inflict mortal punishment on any people who resist embracing it, and uses madrasses to inculcate children with the notion that it is noble to murder infidels in the name of God, is for Muslim educators, community leaders, and clerics to start focusing on living and teaching the gospel.

The only way Christianity will ever escape from the dark ages of fraudulent pagan ideology like the atonement doctrine is for its leaders, educators, and clerics to start focusing on living and teaching the gospel.

Both groups give lip service to it, and many in the groups try to live righteously, but how can they teach principles they don’t know? Unless the three basic points of the gospel are explained to them, how will they ever discover them with clarity in their convoluted holy books? And WHO will do the explaining, if not people like you? Have you already explained it in any of your 50+ books? If not, why not?

My final question to you is this: did you know the gospel as I have explained it above before reading my explanation? If so, where and how did you discover it? Please be specific. I’d love a pleasant surprise in your answers.

In closing, I want you to know that I have not intended to defame Muhammad, the Qur’an, Islam, or Muslims in the comments I have made, and I am willing to be corrected in any errors I have made. I have not knowingly misstated the truth in anything I have said, nor have I pulled any punches to avoid offending you. I have tried to present my considerations and reasonings frankly, and I can support all of my assertions about information in the Qur’an or Bible with relevant, straight-forward scripture. Since I am not writing a paper for any of your classes, I do not think such support is necessary, particularly since you are a well-read scholar on the subject.

Bob Hurt