The Lessons of October 7th 2023: The Dangers of Religious Extremism and Intolerance

The horrific attack by Hamas on October 7^th, 2023  has produced a ripple effect few anticipated. Israel has long enjoyed the support from the West and most of the rest of the world. It’s chief exception was the Communist Bloc of the Cold War and their client states, mostly in the Middle East. Yet, for some reason the unprovoked attack by an organization known for its brutal Nazi-like treatment of its own people and for committing mass acts of terror again mostly innocent bystanders, has had a rather strange, counterintuitive response.

To briefly recap, on October 7^th, 2023, about 7000 terrorist on motorcycles, powered paragliders, small boats, attacked Israel at 119 points along and near the Israeli-Gaza border. Among the attackers was “Nukhba”, which are specially trained commando units of the Hamas military along the lines of Iraq’s Republican Guards, noted for the ferociousness and absolute dedication.

The attack, code named “Al Aqsa Flood” began with a launch of approximately 5000 rockets over 20 minutes into and along Israel’s border with Gaza (and another 1000 rockets launched during the attack). The assault wasn’t directed at  Israeli military bases as you would expect from a legitimate military operation.  Instead, it centered on small civilian, mostly farming, communities or “Kubutzes”  which were either unarmed or very lightly armed.

About 1,195 men, women, and children were murdered. Many were brutally raped (including children), beaten, tortured, and burned alive. The lucky ones were simply killed outright. According to Israeli and international sources, among those dead were 736 Israeli citizens and 36 children, 79 foreign nationals, and 379 members of Israel’s security forces consisting primarily of off duty members of the military, medical teams, police, etc.

The focal point, however, seems to have been on individuals attending a family oriented  “Supernova Sukkot Music Festival”  or simply the “Nova Music Festival”. There was an additional 378 individuals murdered along with 44 hostages taken (all told, there was a total of 251 hostages, of which 30 were children). The perpetrators, armed mainly with  hand grenades, handheld rocket launchers (“RPG”), and AK type assault weapons, was lead by the Al-Qassam Brigade, and groups of Palestinian civilians who were being egged on by the terrorists.

Other groups believed to have participated in the October 7^th attack included the National Resistance Brigades, which is military wing of the Maoist Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist organization, the secular Lion’s Den group, along with elements of other terrorist organizations including the Iranian backed Hezbollah, which operates mainly in southern Lebanon.

Following the attack, some 44 countries immediately condemned the attack (which some have referred to as blatant genocide against the Israelis) while many Arab and Muslim nations claimed that the attack was justified because of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory, which had taken following the 1967 “Six Day War” in which Israel defeated five Arab nations whose publicly stated intent was “pushing Israel into the sea”. The Arab forces were soundly defeated, and as a result, some 300,000 Palestinians and 100,000 Syrians were subsequently expelled from the occupied areas.

Hamas, however, claimed the attack was not just over occupied territory, but the continued blockage of the Gaza Strip (which Israel, along with Egypt, maintains in order to prevent further military material from entering the country), as well as the continued expansion of settlements into Palestinian owned land (which has often included personal property which has been in private hands for generations and blatant destruction of homes by the Israeli military with little or no warning as part of Israel’s “reoccupation” of the land).

Israel’s response to the massacre  was as swift as it was brutal. Approximately 50,810 Gaza Palestinians  have been killed while Hamas’s military strength has dropped from around 60,000 to just around 18,000 or less. Bear in mind too that Hamas, which is regarded internationally as an Iranian backed Sunni terrorist organization, typically uses civilians as shields. They often operate missile sites from schools, playgrounds, daycares, and hospitals. They regularly store weapons in private homes and businesses, while controlling nearly every aspect of life in Gaza.

 Although Israel regularly warns civilians in Gaza in advance of a pending response (unlike most countries), Hamas refuses to allow civilians to either vacate or to move their missiles and military hardware away from home, schools, or hospitals. The hits are recorded as “civilian targets”, making for good propaganda and public media events for the uninformed and an opportunity to discredit the IDF and Israeli government.

Foreign aid, which includes food, fresh water, medical supplies, as well as replacement parts for equipment, generators, heating/cooking oil, desalination pumps,  blankets, and so forth, are sold on the black market for weapons or cash, Sometimes they are rationed out to the populace in order to keep them in line (and staged photo ops for the foreign media). Meanwhile, Israel is blamed for so-called “Palestinian genocide” while their Hamas leaders enjoy luxury vacations throughout the region (Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt are favorite spots).

What’s most interesting about the attack on Israel by Hamas is the  backlash it produced which was totally unexpected. Instead of the usual support Israel has historically received, many nations, especially in Europe, and individuals, particularly among the college age youth, blamed Israel not just for the attack by Hamas, but also for intensity of their response and even accuse Israel of intentionally triggered a genocide of the Gazan people.  As an aside, this backlash hasn’t just been directed at Israel. It’s been aimed at the United States, which has traditionally supported Israel, Jews and anyone who supports Israel.  

In some ways it reminded me of the latter days of the Vietnam War when mainly young Leftwing anti-war protesters embraced Cuban revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara and “Uncle” Ho Chi Minh, with their images showing up nearly everywhere. North Vietnamese and Russian “ Sickle and Hammer” flags were almost commonplace at nearly every protest.

Many of the youth were openly promoting Communist ideals (I suspect much of it had to do with tweaking the noses of the Status Quo as it did anything) while burning their draft cards. Nowadays, its Palestinian flag alongside  (ironically) the LGBQT+ flag showing up at protests while they go about illegally trying to block traffic and screaming at anyone who disagrees with them.  I wonder if anyone ever told them that the only way you ultimately change the Status Quo is with ideas and action, not by throwing temper tantrums?

Nevertheless, despite all the meaningless political rhetoric, the empty headed talking heads, the faux militants with the multicolored hair and nose rings, and the wannabe revolutionaries, I wondered if anyone has bothered to ask the people of Gaza what they thought? They are the ones being most affected. They deserve to speak for themselves. Afterall, it’s their opinion alone that actually counts.

When asked about Hamas, most Gazans describe the terrorist organization as “oppressive” (especially for women) and typically placing the interest of Iran ahead of theirs.  They blame Hamas’s attack on Israel for the carnage which has befallen them, while criticizing Hamas for not apologizing for the civilian deaths.

They claim that while Israel “dehumanizes” them, so does Hamas, which sees them as a tool to be used against Israel and the West. They do not accept Hamas emphasis on martyrdom, saying that they value life more. To Hamas and other Islamists the Gazans claim, Palestinians must die so that they can justify their existence.  Gazans point out that Leftist Arab groups and Islamists don’t like for Gazans to speak independently, preferring to control their narrative for them, using their voices to promote their agendas.

Just over 80% said they wanted new elections when the war was over. When asked who they trust to lead Gaza after the war, 40% of Gazans said they’d support  Fatah, the secular based party which currently governs the West Bank while just 6% would back Hamas (no real surprise when you understand that Hamas hasn’t allowed any free and open elections in Gaza since 2006).  When asked if their was a new election after the war, who would they support, the results were pretty similar. 47% said they’d vote for Fatah while again, just 6% would back Hamas. It’s worth noting that 53% of Gazans didn’t believe Hamas would be willing to form a unified national Palestinian government with Fatah.

When asked about the war, 84% said that Hamas should release all hostages.74% wanted an international organization to manage the Rafah border with Israel.  62% wanted to see a two state solution with Israel similar to what was originally proposed in 1948 but rejected by the Arab League. 19% thought a single state solution was the best option. Among Israelis, just 26% think a two state solution was still possible.

It’s worth noting that 74% said they didn’t think Israel was serious about ending the war. Afterall, Israel is winning. However, 20% thought that Hamas wanted to keep the war going as well.  Recent intelligence reports seem to confirm this assumption.

According to these reports, while Hamas had lost half of its original strength since 2023, there’s strong evidence that their recruiting efforts have been successful in bringing them back to near their pre-October 7^th strength. Most of the new recruits are from countries with poor economic opportunities.

This bodes poorly not just for the people of Gaza and Israel, but the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. Groups like Hamas are interested in just one thing---the utter destruction of Israel at any cost (followed by the annihilation of all Kefirs (Non-Muslims). After that, they can murder each over which sect---Shiite or Sunni---is God’s chosen religion of peace and tolerance.   

Iran, perhaps Israel’s moral enemy, has continued with its own nuclear program, allegedly with the intent of launching nuclear tipped missiles at its archenemy with the understanding that such an attack would result in an immediate response and the total destruction of Iran and its people. When involved in a religious war, ordinary lives are inconsequential. They wallow in the gore of war like pigs in mud.

Groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and dozens of others also understand this all too well. They  care little for the people they claim to govern. They are mere sacrifices intended for their alters of extremism, ignorance and unquestioned obedience. They bow their heads in prayer and profess to worship one thing when in truth what they worship is oblivion.

While the majority of Gazans no longer support Hamas, many fear that Hamas will retain control, and the killing will only continue. Helmed in on all sides, they’re trapped. ISIS and Al Qaeda are greedily building their own caliphates on the corpses of Syrian, Kurdish, and Yazidi dead.  In Iran, the ayatollahs are showing signs of loosening their grip on power but still remain strong enough and determined to lead the people to the apocalypse.  

There’s no question about their dedication to the cult of death, while we chose not to take them at their word. We like to pretend that somehow, they’re the victims. The Gazans and other Palestinians would disagree. So would the Iranian people and the Kurds, the Yazidis, and countless others of various religions, ethnic groups, gender, and sexual orientation.  You want to talk about intolerance and hatred? Well, here it is in one neat package with a noose for a bow.

 In 1948, just three years after the horrors of the Holocaust,  we thought they won’t come for a newly proclaimed Israel, yet they did. They refused the creation of a Palestinian nation too. Today, some 76 years later,  they still seek Israel’s destruction.  We thought they’d never come for Europe. They have. Europeans are increasingly minorities where they live. Many think they won’t come for Russia, India, Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, or China, but they will just as they will eventually come for us unless we stop  religious and political extremism, intolerance, and authoritarianism in all its forms.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

October 7 Hamas led attack in Israel

Al-Qassam Brigades

Nova music festival massacre

Six Day War

Casualties of the Gaza war

Gazans risk safety to share their criticisms of Hamas

What Gazans Really Think of the War, Who They Blame, and WhatThey Want to Happen Next

Has Palestinian’s perception of Hamas changed?

While Gazans Suffer, Leaders Live in Luxury

Hamas leaders worth $11bn revel in luxury---while Gaza’speople suffer

Analysis: Hamas has been hit hard by Israel, but is not outof Gaza

Who Are You? On Being An American in America

It was once a matter of some pride to declare one's citizenship. In fact, it was the hope and dream of nearly every immigrant coming to this country to become an American citizen. Many would do everything they could to learn about their new home. They would even try to pick up every bit of English they could, either before leaving the "Old Country" or on the ship over. Of course, those were the days when America was seen as a "melting pot"; where we left our past behind and adopted the traditions, values, and, of course, the language of the place which many called the "Land of Second Chances".

Of course, those days seem condemned to another time as distant as Colonial America, the Old West, or the Roaring Twenties. Today we've become a land of "Multiculturalism" where immigrants are encouraged (even expected) to bring their religion, values and traditions, prejudices, hatreds, and languages with them.

It now commonplace to go into any store like a Wal-Mart or Meijer's at certain times and barely hear any English at all. Of course, it's just as common to see individuals walking around in their native dress. Nearly every grocery store now caters to their dietary demands, often while sacrificing space to more traditional foods.

But perhaps in some ways this is to be expected every time you have a large influx of immigrants, however, never (or if so, very rarely) has grocers pushed aside more popular items in favor of someone else's. What's worse is the fact that an increasingly number immigrant communities are demanding that stores, restaurants, and grocery stores stop carrying certain items out of their religious requirements. In other words, if they can't have it, you won't have it either.

We're starting to see demands that stores stop carrying liquor, tobacco, or pork products because it "offends" them. At the same time, there is a slow but growing demand that women stop wearing certain attire or going to certain public places---especially unescorted---for the same reason. Why is that? I am something of a amateur historian. I'm pretty well versed in most cultures, religions, and so forth. Never have I read or heard of any group in the US demanding that others follow their traditions. Never, and yet it appears to be here.

I have, however, often heard of various groups going to other countries and being told that they have to conform to the laws and values of the native population (including learning the native language). In fact, that's quite common. They usually call it an invasion. Speaking of laws, since when does an immigrant population go to another country and demand that their laws be accept along side or in lieu of the host country's? But, in Europe that's exactly what has happened in numerous places such as the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland. It's also starting to show up in America with many on the Left actually supporting it, which, to be perfectly honest, I find to be both amusing and at the same time, rather naive. Why you ask?

Well, those on the Left who seem to support these infringements on our society in the name of solidarity or whatever would actually find themselves in a rather difficult (at best) position should their efforts succeed. For instance, take the gay community in this country. Many support the Muslim community in this country, which is perfectly fine. However, they also support the extremists within the Muslim community, which is the most active and vocal.

It is this a particularly virulent strain which is deeply opposed to everything about gays. In the Middle East, they routinely throw gays off rooftops, impale them, burn them at the stake, and all sorts of other nasty means of torture and murder of both gay men and lesbian women (bisexuals included). Meanwhile, women who've been raped are the ones punished and more often than not themselves murdered for committing the "crime" of being raped. At worse, the rapist may be expected to "marry" the individual he violently raped. Doesn't that bring up images of marital bliss?

Women, to them, are no better than second class citizens. They don't believe women should drive, vote, or have any other commonly accepted rights. That includes the ability to speak freely or openly, to dress as they please, to drink, smoke, or go anywhere they want when they want. Girls, as young as 9 years old, are sometimes made to marry men decades older then themselves. Why? Religious tradition. As an aside, this tradition also includes sexual relations with young boys too. But should we allow that "tradition", which is a form of pedophilia, to be practiced in this country? Not to do so could be seen as impinging on their 1st Amendment rights.

Want a career ladies? Forget it. Women aren't even supposed to attend school beyond an elementary level. Those who do often run the risk of being publicly beaten, scared, or even having acid thrown on their faces. Meanwhile, those who dare teach these young girls are beaten or even murdered while their school books are burned, sometimes along with the schools. Can you imagine what could happen if this strain should become the dominant force in this country the way it has elsewhere? Is that what "feminist" in this country want? Is any of this what the average American woman wants?

However, I want to make clear that this isn't all or even majority of Islam. Many have adopted much of Western Civilization, including full and equal rights for women, tolerance for homosexuality, and other standards, which is as it should be. However, these are the moderates who tend to be quiet and stay in the background. The few who support this backwards 9th century way of thinking, are also the ones most engaged in terrorism throughout the world, and they tend to be the most vocal and activist of the groups in the West.

While I generally don't care what any group says, does or believes, I draw the line at being told that I or anyone else has to comply lest they become "offended". I've never been known for kowtowing to any person, group, belief, or ideology. Nevertheless, no one should ever be forced to conform to another's traditions, values (including religious) or anything else. If someone wants to voluntarily and willingly conform adapt, or adopt some belief system, political ideology, or cultural traditions, that's their business. But to be compelled, bullied, or threaten into it, then there's a critical issue that we as nation need to address.

Personally, I have literally no problems with someone's race, sexual orientation, ethnic group, religion, or whatever. Frankly, I don't need to know nor do I really care. If they treat me and mine with respect and courtesy, then I'll do the same. I don't think I'm unique in that regard. I think most, perhaps the overwhelming majority, of people in this country feel the same way. However, to be told that we have restrict what we're doing, wearing, saying eating, or coerced into removing historical objects and symbols in order to make someone else feel better about themselves else be called a "bigot" or a "racist", I don't think so (not that name calling ever meant anything to me anyway). This is especially true when these restrictions work one way.

To be told that I can't go to the grocery and buy something only to find that it's been discontinued because someone or some group complained about it, then we have a problem. To be told by my waiter at a restaurant that I can't order a BLT and beer because they've been removed from the menu to avoid "offending" some group, there is going to be a problem. To be told I can't watch a certain TV show on a cable or satellite channel that I'm paying for because someone else "disapproves" of it, then we have a problem. If they don't like the show, then switch the channel. There are literally hundreds of other choices for them to pick from.

When I try to call some business I need to speak with and being told that I have to press "1" for English, they're likely to hear some words in English they weren't expecting. In fact, I flat out refuse to press anything. The call will be ran through automatically if you do nothing anyway! If someone wants to speak with someone in their native language, then let them press some number...or go to where that language is spoken. I don't care which.

To be told that there are 24 or 57 or whatever genders and I have to play along or I get sanctioned somehow, then we've got a problem. It's just like having to worry about using the proper pronoun when speaking to someone so you don't hurt their feelings (or worse, get fined in some places), then there's going to be a problem. The last time I worried about using the proper pronoun I was in the 4th grade (I've learned a few adjectives since then by the way).

When some individual or group tells my wife, sister, mother, niece, or whomever that they disapprove of what they're wearing or doing because it "offends" them, we're going to have words. When someone tells me that some Y chromosome carrying dude who has "chosen" to be a female is going into the restroom with my wife, my mother, or any of the other naturally born females in my family or who are friends, there is a very serious problem and I'm absolutely positive that I'm not the only one who feels the same way.

On a related issue, when people choose to come to this country, great. We, as Americans, welcome them with open arms, especially if they're bring some badly needed skill with them. However, all we ask is that they do so legally; that they respect our laws and do it the right way. It would be demanded of us if we wanted to immigrate to their native country right? Those who seek to enter this country illegally are first and foremost showing their contempt for our national sovereignty and to our laws.

Secondly, they are thumbing their noses at all those who are trying to come here the right way; the legal way. Think of it this way. You've been standing in line for hours to see a movie you've been waiting to see for weeks. Then a bunch of people come along and cut in line way ahead of you. Then get to go in without having to pay for a thing, while you have to pay full price, assuming they don't run out of tickets and tell you they're sold out and you'll have to come back tomorrow...or next week.

Then, after having to wait a few hours longer than you would have, you find out that these individuals got free drinks, snacks, and preferred seating. Worse yet, you're told that you have to pay a portion of their tickets, drinks, and everything else they get. Sound fair to you? But wait, there's more. Since they don't speak English (even though you took the time to at least learn some), the film will be shown in their native language. If you're lucky, you may get subtitles. Maybe.

Well, that's a pretty good example of how our current immigration system works, or at least how the Left would like to work. Meanwhile, they apply the same idea to these so-called "sanctuary" states and cities, then have the audacity to demand more federal funding to pay for the problems they've created. It doesn't seem exactly fair to me, especially when they aid these individuals with the ways and means to spread throughout the country, making them more difficult to apprehend. But then that's the idea isn't it? When you complain or speak out they call you a "xenophobe" or some other name they'd likely have to go look up to understand the meaning of.

Of course, we're not even touching on the consequences of these individuals coming into the country not just illegally, but without ever having been inoculated against diseases that we had eliminated from this country like TB, measles, whooping cough, mumps, and a whole range of other highly contagious diseases. The result could be catastrophic for this country. Perhaps causing thousands of preventable deaths. Who should be held responsible then?

Meanwhile, liberal churches and religious groups act as if they're exempt from our laws by encouraging, aiding, and protecting these individuals; showing them how to cheat taxpayers out of money by manipulating the system. Sleazy business owners take advantage of them by working them in substandard conditions for next to nothing. So, who's the real criminal here? The ones who knowingly broke the law or those who exploit them for god or profit?

America used to be a country where people came to shed their past; to start over. They were proud to become Americans. People were free to live out their lives, so long as they didn't try to impose their religions, values or hatred on others. We valued the individual, but we were always willing to offer a helping hand, but don't expect others to do it for you; don't expect to be given something for nothing. No one owes you anything.

We were created as a nation of laws, and we expect others to follow those same laws, regardless of origin, faith, income bracket or elected office. Period. There was and remains no room for competing legal systems. While people spoke the tongue of their past, often in private or within their communities, they strove to learn and speak the language of their adopted home---English.

A common language is the fabric which weaves a single nation. But those days appear to be fading. In its place are those who are planting the seeds to create a multicultural and divided nation; a nation with different values, traditions, languages, and even laws. Others who've experienced this have quickly fallen; splintered into dozens of separate and unique pieces; the ancient Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, not to mention Austro-Hungary, Spanish, French or British empires. Even as recently as Yugoslavia, the USSR, or Czechoslovakia in the 1980's and 90's. Do not expect that we will not share their fate if we continue along the same path.

Slipping Off the Mask of Identity Politics

We've all heard the terms---LGBQT Equality, Alt-Right, Black Nationalism, Senior Entitlements, Veteran Needs, and countless others. These are all examples of the latest trend on modern political landscape--- Identity Politics. In fact, identity politics can now be used to define issues germane solely to seniors, urban vs rural, education, culture, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, and so on.

There's really nothing new about identity politics. It's been around from almost the moment we started coming together to form villages, towns, and cities thousands of years ago. Mankind is tribal. We've always been tribal. We are hardwired to be tribal. Tribalism is what has protected us, provided for us, sheltered us, and enabled us to develop sub-specialties which led to the creation of economies and thus civilizations. Identity politics is our incarnation of tribalism.

The modern notion of tribalism or identity politics began in the early 1960's with the likes of King, Abernathy, Randolph, Young, Wilkins and the Civil Rights Movement they led which sought to create social and economic parity between the black community and white community. This later resulted in the creation of a competing parallel moment which sought to replace the white, mostly male, political, social and economic leadership with a black counterpart. In fact, in some cases, it sought to create a competing counterculture; a separate society which wanted instant change "by all means possible". This was the black nationalism of Huey Newton and Malcolm X. Nevertheless, the concept of modern identity politics was born.

The term itself is thought to have first emerged in 1977 as part of a political manifesto put out by Barbara Smith, one of the founders of a black Lesbian feminist group, the Combahee River Collective, which also had a strong Marxist bent to it. What's different is that today's version is more about the creation of a very narrow demographic which is focused on just a few issues for their own benefit at the expense of all other issues and groups.

Under Classical Marxism, the notion of identity politics was already well defined. It was the working class---the proletariat---against the bourgeoisie; that is, the owners and Capitalists. However, the objective was to change the social structure in order to benefit all not just the working class. Under National Socialism (aka "Nazism"), it was about removing one group---the Jews---and replacing them with another group---the "Aryans", and with it, creating a new social, economic, and political order.

Nowadays, it's not about changing the social order. It's about substituting one group for another so society itself doesn't change. Just one's place in it. The Far Left, as well as the Democratic Party, are often accused of promoting identity politics, both in terms of claiming solidarity with each group and sub-group's goals while at the same accusing Conservatives and the Republican Party of backing the Alt-Right or Alternative/Far Right, which is the politically correct term associated with "white nationalists", "white supremacists", "white nationalism" and others on the so-called Far Right (we are to believe this includes the Tea Party, pro-life, and those who are anti-illegal immigration or pro 2nd Amendment).

Of course, it should go without saying that there are those on the Right who maintain that the extreme Left and Democratic Party are trying to promise everything to everybody in order to cobble together a new political base which includes black and Hispanic nationalist groups like Black Lives Matter and La Raza, as well as those who have pro-Marxist or pro-socialist leaning, radical feminists, pro-choice, and pro-amnesty group along with those who'd like to restrict or prohibit gun ownership and stifle free speech. Even those like Antifa, which often behaves like the Fascist it says it opposes, are being courted.

Regardless of who accuses who of what, the end result has been a further division of this country by those who are solely interested in their own issues at the expense of everyone else. It's not like these groups are able to achieve any real political clout beyond the regular news cycle. Nevertheless, the corporate media makes them seem larger and more powerful than they actually are. The real special interest group, the moneyed powerbrokers, continue on with politics as usual.

These other groups do nothing more than serve as a distraction from what's really happening behind the scenes in Washington and on Wallstreet. We find ourselves fighting against each other on issues and causes which mean little or nothing. The identity politics of old may have organized around one segment of society, their ultimate objective was to transform society as a whole for the betterment of all; not to the exclusion of all as it is today.

It's time we take stock of what we have in common with each other and not in the manufactured differences which the media promotes. As long as we remain divided, we cannot focus on the crimes and violence being committed at home and abroad in our name. Only by coming together as unhyphenated Americans will we be able to address these modern day robber barons; the globalists who seek to undermine our national sovereignty, undercut our Bill of Rights, and usurp our Constitution.

We've become an Oligarchy. Power is in the hands of a ruling political class comprised of plutocrats and an elite clique of very powerful and wealthy CEOs. There is still time to take our country back and restore what we've lost, but the sands are quickly running out of our nation's hourglass. We're seeing our freedoms chipped away piecemeal. There's an invasion taking place in Europe and countless attempts to repeat the experience within our borders. Jobs, especially union jobs, are exported overseas, leaving many Americans scrambling to find ways to pay their bills and keep food on the table while taxes and public utility rates increase in order to pay for these unwelcome changes.

Even our children and grandchildren aren't safe. Through the inclusion that's identity politics, we have drag queens reading to our kids...in school libraries... about the normalcy and joys of gay relationships . Some have even been putting on excerpts from their routines! I couldn't care less about someone's sexual proclivities, but damn, should children be exposed to this stuff at such a young age? Others are trying to claim that pedophilia is normal; just another "sexual orientation" like any other. The hell it is!

Being called a "racist" is now justified if you, for instance, happen to disagree with someone of another race (this works only one way of course). It seems to be a handy little tool to get what you want or to get out of trouble. Reverse racism has become acceptable to the point where whites and even Asians are expected to feel ashamed of their racial and/or ethic heritage. There are even white females who feel that they're "obligated" to have sex with a minority male in order to "atone" for some mythical transgression of their ancestors. Shouldn't we simply focus on ending racism period? At one point, not that many years ago, racism had all but vanished.

There are those who seem indignant that the majority of Americans support protecting our borders, our national sovereignty or not using taxpayer money to support those here illegally. Those individuals talk about so-called "migration rights" as if a secure border is somehow a bad thing. There are religious organizations and church who think they're are exempt from federal laws concerning immigration; that we should "embrace" foreign languages, values, and traditions at the expense of our own. Even some cities and states believe they can ignore federal immigration laws with impunity, and still have the audacity to demand more federal dollars to cover the cost! This is yet another form of identity politics.

When it comes to religion, it's just as crazy. Under the facade of modern identity politics, Christians, as well as Jews, Hindus, and Buddhist, among others, are expected to curtail their religious practices so that one group doesn't feel "offended" or excluded. There are even LGBQT and feminists groups who support this when, in truth, that religion would murder the other two without a second thought because that's part of its guiding dogma. It would be their "religious duty"! Again, identity politics.

The irony (and humor) here is nearly overwhelming. It would be like "Hasidic Jews for Nazis" in 1934. Meanwhile, the US is attempting to impose "democracy" on a people who barely have any concept of democracy while attempting to gain control through military means of their natural resources.

We are under surveillance in some form or fashion nearly every moment of our lives (for our own protection we're told). We watch helplessly as wars and conflicts are orchestrated under the banner of "spreading democracy" or overthrowing some tyrant (which, as usually the case, we helped to install and whose usefulness has expired) while deals over the control of resources and assets are made in boardrooms and on Capitol Hill.

The United States was intended to be a unique experiment in the history of Mankind. It was to be a place where anyone from anywhere, regardless of their circumstances, including race, religion, or ethnic group could come and start over. All we asked was that you leave behind your past prejudices and hatreds; that you accepted our laws and values, and you did it legally. There was no room for hyphenated loyalties. You were an American or you weren't. Naturally, it helped if you spoke out language. Whatever you brought with you in terms of traditions and so forth was blended in with every other immigrant. It was called the "The Melting Pot", and it made us a great nation.

Today, we're told to embrace "multiculturalism"; where everyone could bring a piece of their home country with them, along with all its petty bias and hatreds. You could even bring a system of religious laws not compatible with democracy, and yet we're told to accept those differences as if nothing will ever happen. Identity politics once again. Of course, all we have to do is watch world news to see that's not true. The social and religious values are different; often brutally so. The work ethics is different. One society believes in hard work and self-improvement while the other believes in getting by off of others.

This is the other side of identity politics. It says that all societies have equal value and thus are fully compatible with ours; that no society is better than another. This doesn't encourage building a stronger society, but one which will result in a balkanized nation. Of course, by breaking us down into the smallest denominator, we're more controllable; more manageable, and if you're setting at the very top of the food chain and your goal is absolute control, then that's exactly what you want.

Christmas Time in 2018: Some Lessons To Consider

Well, Christmas time is upon us once again, and once more we hear the refrain of "Peace of Earth and good well to all", yet when it comes to shopping for Christmas gifts, we're hardly very "peaceful". It seems that it's all about grabbing what you can, including elbowing, punching, scratching, and outright knock downs and drag outs over some toy, piece of technology, or item of clothing which will be obsolete in a matter of months. People have complained for decades about how commercial and materialistic Christmas has become with all its glitz and glamour, around the clock advertising, and mindless buying sprees.

There are currently some 26 wars or conflicts being waged around the world as I write this with Ten of them have the potential to escalate, and none of them have anything to do with Donald Trump being the President. In fact, the majority of them involve religious extremism led by a militant version of Islam versus everyone else (as an example, two young girls on vacation in Turkey were recently murdered---beheaded---by extremist). The next biggest cause resulted from the usual economic reasons, which is control of resources including the Civil War in Syria, the growing situations in East China Sea and the Crimea and the political/economic instability in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere , followed by ethnic violence.

Often these situations overlap with religion, economics, politics, and ethnic or sectarian violence all playing a factor in varying degrees. There is the increasing likelihood of violence in other places, which are currently simmering, such as Europe due to the increasing violence and strain on the social infrastructure caused by the mostly under educated and poorly skilled "migrants"; many of whom having embraced a radicalized Islam.

In today's America, we are facing increasing problems with our decaying infrastructure,an antiquated tax system, and some would argue, even our social system as "Identify Politics" continues to grow, pitting groups and individuals against each other along every conceivable line. Income inequality is growing. Internationally, we are facing challenges not just from old enemies, but from new ones as well.

The old adage, "Peace on Earth and good well to all" seems far more appropriate today than ever before. It seems that not only is America spinning apart, but so too is the whole world. Perhaps we should remember that Christmas celebrates the symbolic birth of Jesus approximately 2000 years ago (scholars will tell you that the actual birth likely took place in the Spring. Early Christians celebrated the nativity on March 28th before the adoption of December 25th). This was a time when Judea was an occupied country, militarily, politically, and religiously by the Romans military along with a puppet government (in those days politics and religion were merely different sides of the same drachma), a corrupt and collaborating religious elite, a pervasive Greco-Roman religious pantheon, and by Greek philosophy.

There was social chaos, uprisings, protests, and violent reprisals, especially in the northern area of the Galilee, known for being a hotbed of troublemakers. Just 9 months prior to his birth, there had been a serious uprising against Roman authority just a short sling shot's throw away, in nearby Sepphoris (Sepphoris, which is largely forgotten today by all but a few biblical historians and archaeologists, was the major Greco-Roman city in region and considered a bustling "modern" city of its time where there was able work to be had).

The short lived revolt was led by a certain Judas ben Ezekias just shortly after Herod the Great died, and when Mary, the mother of Jesus, would have been about 13 or 14 years old. Part of the revolt included attacking the royal palace and its armory. The initial success of ben Ezekias' revolt resulted in other protests and revolts breaking out all over the country. The Roman governor of Syria, who oversaw the Galilee, a nasty individual by the name of Publius Quintilius Varas, led three Roman legions and auxiliary troops, mostly from Greece, to crush the uprising in typical Roman fashion; that is to say, with utter ruthlessness.

As an aside, women, or rather young girls were typically married off within a month of having their first period. Boys were deemed men, and thus subject to marriage on their 13th birthday. Marriages were almost always arranged by their parents; usually within the same village or at most, the next adjacent community. In some cases, if there were no available children of marrying age, an agreement would be negotiated (along with fee or down payment) with any women in the village who happened to be pregnant that if their child was healthy and of the suitable gender, they would be "promised" upon reaching the age of maturity. As a result, most villages were heavily interconnected through marriage.

Sepphoris, which had fallen into rebel hands, was burnt to the ground on orders from Varas and thousands of Romans and auxiliary troops laid waste to almost all of the Galilee, including neighboring Nazareth (which likely had under 30 families living there at the time) with the usual Roman efficiency and zeal , which naturally included executions, beatings, and rape (since this was viewed as a revolt against Roman authority, anyone found or even suspected of being guilty was subject to the Roman punishment for treason par excellence, crucifixion.

Men and even some women would be nailed to a crossbeam and hoisted onto a fixed post all along the main roads and left to die, which could take up to a week, after which their bodies were ordered to be left to rot where they would be devoured by birds and wild animals (as an aside, because wood was so scarce, the crosses would be repeatedly reused; often removed and transported to where they were needed except in Jerusalem, where there was a fixed point for execution of those convicted of treason). The point of this form of punishment was to both inflict a slow painful death and to serve as a warning to all to might think about defying the power of Roman. So, in effect, it was to inspire terror). The trauma of Varas' brutal response left the entire region in shock and fear of the Romans for years to come...as intended. Those rebels not killed in the fighting or later executed were sold into slavery with many going to the mines in Spain or Britain, which was as good as a death sentence.

It was into this particular world that Jesus, or Yeshua as he was actually known, was born (the fact that he survived childhood was itself something of a miracle given the extremely high rate of infant mortality and death of the mother). Life in occupied Judea was never easy. In addition to be a political/religious hot spot, it was also one of the more poorer areas where there was few private ownership of land except by rich estate holders. Many worked for these individuals, working their fields on the few arable tracts of land which was available or tending to the grape or olive orchards (wine and olive oil were major commodities).

Others earned a living fishing and selling their catches in the local marketplaces while others, who tended to be on the lowest end of social totem pole just above beggars, were the tradesmen. Common belief was that Jesus, like his father, Joseph, was a carpenter. However, that's not accurate. Wood was a rare commodity and usually only used by the well to do. Thus, most tradesmen were engaged in some sort of stonework, though they were by necessity, jack-of-all-trades (the term used to describe Joseph's occupation is "tekton" which actually means simply a builder and typically applied to someone who built with stone, which was the most common building material available. By the way, unlike today, children started helping out almost as soon as they could walk. In fact, everyone contributed in some way as a matter of survival. Women would tend to the children as well as weave if they were able, or make and/or paint pottery, help their husband sell their wares or catches in the marketplace, and whatever else they could do.

Life was a daily struggle, and under the yoke of Roman rule, it could be especially hard especially when it came to taxation, which could take the form of coinage or produce (by weight). In addition, religion was not something optional; something you did one day a week. It was a daily thing. Practically everything act was governed by some religious law, which is one reason many younger or particularly ambitious Jews decided to embrace the Greco-Roman influence of their occupiers. Greco-Roman philosophy and especially its religion still involved a certain amount of religious "duty", but far less than required under strict Judaic law. However, there were certain obligations that even the most lax Jew tended to follow, and that included donations to the Temple during High Holidays such as Passover, which was hard especially for the poor, which, no doubt, Jesus' family was.

For example, when Jesus was born, his parents were required to participate in practice called "Redemption of the First Born". In theory, the first born child or animal had to be "redeemed" based on a passage in the Bible which said that the first born child or animal belonged to God (Numbers 8:17). Obviously no one was going to sacrifice their first born child, so they were required to buy them back. The costs was five silver shekels. In lieu of cash, a lamb could be offered. Well, if you were wealthy, that wasn't a problem, but if not, that became an issue. Heck, you may not even own a lamb or know anyone in your village who owned a lamb! But there was an out. The Torah stipulated that in case of dire poverty, the parents could offer either two doves or two pigeons as a burnt offering (Leviticus 12:8).

Is this what Jesus' parent's did? Well, they were likely poor enough to qualify. Well, in the Book of Luke (Luke 2:24), that's exactly what we're told they did. Both Joseph, Mary, and Jesus make a trip to the Temple in Jerusalem (which was no easy day trip. They likely had to travel the 65 or so miles on foot, which could also be dangerous, and likely spend the night beside the road if they were unable to complete the journey during the day. Once there, they likely made the Temple their first stop. While there, they may have stayed with relatives in order to save money, which they didn't have much of to begin with. They may have done some sightseeing, as long as it was free, and headed back as soon as possible. I can imagine Joseph seeking a day job in order to earn extra money to feed his family. After all, this wasn't a vacation. If they weren't working, they weren't eating.

Education was a luxury which only a very small handful of individuals could afford, and those were mostly the elites such as the political and religion class, and certain individuals in the upper echelons on the military and perhaps a few well-to-do merchants. In Jesus' case, it's extremely doubtful that he was literate, at least not fully. He would have been taught a passage or two for his Bar Mitzvah. Whether or not he was able to read the passage or simply memorized it is open to debate. If he did learn any more than that, he was indeed a lucky child because that meant that he lived close enough for someone educated to teach him (for free, which was rare in itself) and that his family could afford for him take time away from work (highly unlikely), but there were some extremely rare exceptions.

Most learning took place after work and the evening meal, and was primarily oral (the day started just before sunrise and ended when there was just light enough to walk home, which was about 45 minutes to an hour from Sepphoris to Nazareth). Learning by listening and memorizing stories was the most common form of education, especially among the poor. Even in Greece, known for its higher learning, the use of oral traditions was still common. Children would either listen to stories told by their parents, or other parents and the village elders (if there was an actual reading taught, this would have been the time and place).

It would have been a difficult childhood for anyone of this place and period. Life under Roman occupation could be brutal, especially in a place known for its active opposition as the Galilee was. However, the Romans did tend to be tolerant of most religions, including Judaism. By and large, most religions had no problem with the Romans when it came to religion. As a general rule, subject peoples were usually denied the right to practice their religion by a conquering power. A conquered people were typically required to destroy their old gods and adopt the new ones. Temples or other places of worship were either destroyed or "purified" with fire to make temple fit for the new religion. In the case of the Romans, they allowed their subject peoples to believe as they saw fit provided they paid at least a nominal homage to the Emperor, usually in the form of a statue in the main temple. Normally, this wouldn't have been a problem, except for the Jews of Judea. Their religion explicitly prevented them from doing so (Exodus 20:1 -17). Specifically, it was the Second and Third Commandments which were the problem.

The Second Command read "Thou Shall Not Have Any Other Gods Before me". The Third Commandment, which followed along the same lines, said "Thou Shall Not Make Unto Thee Any Graven Image(s)". Plus, we have to recall that the Temple was considered sacred in the extreme, and while local Roman appointed governors might contribute money and labor to its repair or building, there was simply no crossing the line when it came to placing a statue of the Emperor or Imperial eagle or any other symbols on or near the Temple. Ultimately, this was to the result in being the biggest source of opposition by the Jews, and to their downfall.

We can try and imagine what this moment in history must have been like, but truthfully it's difficult at best. It's almost as if we trying to look at an alien society. It was one which, on one hand, was devoted to the Torah and to its religious institutions and priestly class, which it followed to the letter. On the other hand, it had become unwieldy and corrupt. It's most powerful religious leader, the High Priest, was appointed by the Roman governor, who also made the recommendations for the Sanhedrin who were then appointed by the High Priest. In short, Roman controlled the religious life of the people.

Roman also controlled its social and economic life through taxation and the issuance of licenses (which usually came with a nice kickback). Judea also face the encroachment of a fundamentally different religion, along with a system of philosophy which attracted its young people (some males went as far to reverse the procedure of circumcision, which was extremely painful, just to fit in with the sons of Greeks and Romans). It was increasingly common for young Jewish men not just to abandon the faith of the fathers, but to even adopt the customs of the Greeks and Romans; of going to public baths and exercising in the nude, which was forbidden under Jewish religious law. They stopped learning the Torah and started learning Greek or Latin, and studying the works of Greek authors (many of those Jews who could afford an education usually sought out a Greek one instead of a religious based one). Thus, it was feared by the more traditional that Judaism and Jewish Identity may fade away along with the nation itself.

This was the world into which Jesus was born. Perhaps by knowing a little more about the reality of it, we may come to appreciate ours a little bit better, and that just might help us strive a bit harder to find "Peace on Earth and good well to all".




10 Conflicts to Watch in 2018



CFR: 26 Global Conflicts

Gay Marriage: Should It Be Legal?

Did hear the comedian Wanda Sykes was gay? Well, it’s been all over the entertainment news sites recently, but frankly I don’t care. Don’t get me wrong. I like Wanda Sykes. She’s a hilarious comedian, but I really don’t think I need to know who she or anyone else for that matter likes to sleep with. And as for folks like Rosie O’Donnell (remember when she was considered sooo sweat and nice? She even had her own doll. Now we have “mean” Rosie), Ellen Degeneres (a friend of mine calls her “Ellen Degenerate”), Clay Aiken, and all the rest. Who cares? Get over it.

Sexual preference is about as personal and private as it gets. What you like is your business and no one else’s as long as it involves consenting adults right? However, children are another matter, and one that should never ever be tolerated. Punishment of pedophiles should be swift and severe. I couldn’t care less if it’s “humane” or not---that’s my opinion at least. You don’t abuse kids. Period). So, where am I going with this? The answer is gay marriage. Should a couple of the same sex, who happen to be in love, be allowed to marry just like everyone else?

Certainly gay relationships have been around since the beginning. Remember Xerxes of Persia and his Immortals? How about King Phillip of Macedon and his Companions? Of course, there was his son, Alexander the Great. In fact, Socrates, Plato, and most of the Greek philosophers were believed to be gay, or at least bisexual. It wasn’t out of the norm at all in ancient Greece. The great Homer wrote about it in his epics. In Rome, it wasn’t unusual, though a bit more frowned upon in certain circles. Gay relationships were all but unheard of in the more “barbaric” lands occupied by the Germans and Celts, and later, among the Vikings and Huns (for that matter, in the Mongol East either).

Throughout the Middle Ages, gay relationships existed, though (ironically) hided from view from the Catholic Church (where it ran amok or is that a monk?). In fact, it continued down through the Victorian and Edwardian Periods where it was slightly vogue and risqué (does Oscar Wilde rang a bell?), down to the modern period. But throughout, it almost always in the shadows. Many an actor and actress was rumored to be gay, but “forced” to marry as “cover” by the Hollywood studio moguls eager to cash in on their stars. The point I’m trying to make is that gay relationships have and continued to exist, but never, to my knowledge, did gay marriages ever take root. Why?

Marriage has always been seen as a fundamental building block of civilization. It provided the safety net for creating, nurturing, and protecting a family. But many of those aspects have gone. No longer is it necessary for a male to provide for or protect a female. No longer is necessary for a female to even be married when deciding to have children. A doner is all that is required. Women today are quite capable of taking care of themselves in every way, and men are just as adapt as roles traditionally set aside for women. So, does marriage, therefore, carry the same weight that it did originally? For that matter, does it carry the same weight it did just 50 years or 25 years ago?

From the gay perspective, they are just like anyone else in love, and should be allowed to marry…just like everyone else. Recent ballot initiatives seem to indicate that voters disagree. While there are sporadic exceptions, voters have come out in huge numbers to reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. In California for example, where you would expect the gay marriage initiative to pass, voters defeated Proposition 8 by 52%. In 2004, Kentuckians voted 74% against gay marriage, along with 10 other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah). Why?

Frankly, I don’t know. I think political scientists and all those talking heads on the various news programs will be analyzing the results for months and perhaps years to come in some cases. I don’t think the vote was meant to be “anti-gay”, but it may be that people still believe in the institution of marriage as it was originally intended. It could be a reflection of their parent’s morals or dogma taught by their churches or synagogues, either of their youth or where they currently attend (especially among mainstream and conservative religious institutions). Those on the Religious Right would say that G-d (or Allah, Buddha, etc) abhors homosexuality and by extension, the concept of gay marriage.

However, those who support gay marriage would argue that they shouldn’t be held to the criteria of someone else’s religion. Besides, what if there was a church willing to marry them? After all, should the government be allowed to impose restrictions on religion? What about the concept of separation of Church and State? I think that until the US Supreme Court finally rules on the issue, we will see other states open marriage to those of the same sex, only to be reversed later. What will prove to be interesting to watch is if whether a gay marriage from one state will be recognized in another state where it’s still illegal.

While we’re on the topic, what about private businesses who want to offer insurance to same sex couple like they do to heterosexual couples? Should a company be allowed to provide the same health or survivor benefits to a couple regardless of gender? After all, we’re talking about an estimated 1.2 million gays in the US according to the 2000 Census. Should this be strictly an internal corporate decision? What about gays teaching in public schools? Is it appropriate, and if so, should there be any restriction on who or what grades or subjects they teach? How about adopting children? Of course, there is the question of whether gays should be allowed in the military.

Personally, I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation. I believe in treating someone as I want to be treated (as a disclaimer before proceeding further, I’m strictly uber-hetro). I believe in the traditional roles of marriage between a man and woman. I think a male and female role model is critical to the well rounded upbringing of a child. Two daddies or two mommies just aren’t going to get it from my point of view. The law already provides for survivorship. Caretaker or “next of kin” issues are up to the individuals in involved (or should be). If a board of directors decides to provide insurance that cover same sex couples or live-in hetro couples that‘s their decision. Of course, that also means that you or I don’t have to frequent these same institutions if we disagree. When I was in the military, all I cared about was whether the person next to me did their job. What they do on their on their own time and off base was none of my business so long as it doesn’t affect unit cohesion and efficiency. Teachers are there to teach. In short, my main focus is keeping government and other groups out of my personal life as much as possible. Of course, I’m the first to acknowledge there are exceptions to most everything I’ve said. So, now, I’d like to hear from you. Do gays have an inherent “right” to marriage? If not, what about civil unions? How did you arrive at your decision?



Fluency: Leading in the Midst of Change
By Phoebe Eng, keynote speaker at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009

Some of you may remember the 1985 hit song, "We are the World," produced by Quincy Jones and an inspiring cast of musicians who sang about working together, past our differences. Or perhaps you remember the tremendously successful United Colors of Benetton ad campaign back in the 1980s, celebrating young faces of every color, signaling the look and feel of a world without borders. Media images like these showed us the world and nation, as we wanted ourselves to be -- pictures and soundbites of many races cooperating, communicating, and sharing opportunity and fortune.

If only it were that simple. Almost 25 years later, we are still struggling to make that vision real -- in our business practices, in the running of our cities, and, now, in the context of great cultural, demographic, and economic changes brought on by globalization.

As 21st century leaders, you know that building, guiding, and sustaining truly diverse communities is tremendously difficult work. Over the last decade, city populations and workforces have changed faster than at any point in history -- job relocation, mobile commerce and ease of travel have changed our cities' demographics quickly and often. Immigrant and new communities continue to influence and change the culture of our cities. Young families and children supplant the aging baby boomer generation, again, changing the character and priorities of a community.

At the same time as we become a more diverse, more prosperous nation, our cities have also become more segregated. In fact, studies from SUNY Albany, UCLA, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education have reported that segregation of our children has worsened over the last decade, even as we live in more integrated areas. As newcomer groups grow in critical mass, so does the tendency to organize along racial, ethnic, or other group-affiliated lines. Changing demographics and the growth of ethnic enclaves have made race awareness and identity politics an effective means of voicing the needs of some of our cities' otherwise marginalized groups.

Amid all of this, civic and corporate leaders are confronted with difficult choices every day. Worthy projects from different community sectors must compete for limited resources. Appointments and commissions must be assigned in ways that satisfy all the interests represented in our constituency groups, assuring each of them adequate representation. From time to time, leaders also face crisis-fueled change, forcing them to guide their communities quickly through controversies.

Does this sound stressful? Indeed, scenes of a diverse community can be those of chaos, fiefdoms, even balkanizing, as some futurists and scholars predict. Alternatively, some see these times as momentous, opening the door to the grandest and most inspiring of challenges.

How does one lead a community, whether local or global team, in the midst of huge demographic and economic shifts? How do leaders create communities where all constituents feel included, counted and equally receiving of the opportunities offered by a community? And how do we have difficult conversations that turn our best intentions into action and accountability, not only from our leaders, but from ourselves?

The answers to these questions are certainly many and varied, depending on a community's specific composition and the issues it faces. Nevertheless, one of the most important skills of a leader through changing times will be a skill set of cultural fluency. This is not necessarily language fluency, as that term is usually used. Fluency is the skill set of understanding and being understood past apparent borders. To know one's constituents and address their needs effectively, 21st century leaders must practice and hone their fluency skills.

Over the past few years, I've talked to many fluent leaders: opinion shapers, thought leaders in business and communities, artists, teachers, media creatives, all who understand that their ultimate success depends on how deeply and quickly they can identify common ground and transcend boundaries between their constituents. Fluent leaders are servant leaders who willingly assume the place of liaison, the diplomatic negotiator, the arbiter of compromise.

What are some of the qualities of a fluent leader? They understand the value of nuance. They readily deal with complexity, knowing that solutions to real problems require many levels of information and analysis. Every one of the fluent leaders I've interviewed is also insatiably curious. They are lifelong learners who have honed their vision and their life's purpose through constant exposure to different experiences.

Perhaps most importantly, these leaders also understand that the practice of fluency is not a Pollyanna-esque, naive vision of the world, where a handshake, a kind word, or a dabble into a diversity program will suffice. It is quite the opposite. Fluency work is hard "detail" work that requires courage. To be a fluent leader means having some enemies, crossing boundaries, and entering into the necessary struggles to challenge leaders and systems that benefit from closemindedness, fear, and simple formulae.

As we work toward uniting our communities, we have shown that we want to trade together, learn about one another, work side by side, make money together, and even build our families -- across cultures and across our differences. Yet without knowing how to bridge what are often daunting chasms across race, religion, class, and culture, creating workable diverse alliances can often be impossible. Basic misunderstandings can thwart our earnest attempts at generating commerce and a vibrant exchange of ideas. Communications break down. Relationships fail.

In our quickly changing communities, the art of fluency becomes a crucial leadership approach for anyone wishing to become an aware global citizen and an effective global leader. And it is the only way forward if we are truly committed to creating a world, and a nation, where all can flourish to their fullest potential.


Author Bio
Phoebe Eng is the Director of Creative Counsel and the 1000 Voices Archive, a national collection of leadership stories from cities across America. As a strategist, she has presented to and advised a wide range of groups from the US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, many Fortune 500 companies, chambers of commerce, and universities. Eng has worked with the Ford Foundation and the Ms. Foundation for Women and on several UN World Conferences. Eng will be presenting a keynote address at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta on March 16-18, 2009.

Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009, is the nation's premier event on best practices in diversity and inclusion. For more information or to register call 781.402.5555 or visit www.linkageinc.com/div


Breaking the Cycle of Violence:

Survivor Corps is a global network of people helping each other to overcome the effects of war and conflict and give back to their communities.

In 2008, Survivor Corps grew from Landmine Survivors Network. The organization has expanded its mission to help all survivors of war. Landmine Survivors Network was co-founded in 1997 by two landmines survivors, Jerry White and Ken Rutherford. From the late Princess Diana of Wales to Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan the organization received support, praise and partnerships at the highest levels.

Survivor Corps focuses on the unique contribution and leadership of conflict survivors because we believe no one is better equipped and motivated to break cycles of violence than those who have survived war.

Our programs currently help survivors in: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Jordan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Uganda, Rwanda, United States and Vietnam.

Our signature peer support program connects survivors with survivor role models to offer encouragement and motivation. This is crucial to helping new survivors find hope, get jobs, and get on with their lives.

Through our community building programs, survivors rebuild communities broken by war by connecting diverse survivor groups and former enemies through collective action.

By training and organizing survivor advocates to campaign for their rights, survivors change the world by raising their voices together and addressing the challenges they face in life after war and conflict.

Our Campaigns Make History:

• The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines. (The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty survivors helped negotiate what was the first arms control agreement in history to include provisions to help victims of the weapon.)

• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to end discrimination and bring equal opportunity to 650 million people with disabilities around the world.

• The Convention to Ban Cluster Munitions being negotiated in 2008 to end the use of cluster bombs and help victims of this indiscriminate weapon.

Survivor Corps
2100 M Street, NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037
Yahoo! Map | MapQuest Map | Google Maps
(202) 464-0007 - Telephone
(202) 464-0011 - FAX

Geneva Office
rue de Cornavin, 11
1201 Geneva
Switzerland
+41-22-732-2841 - Telephone
+41-22-732-2842 - Alternate Telephone
+41-22-732-3882 - FAX

Please direct email contacts to: info@survivorcorps.org

Web Address: http://www.survivorcorps.org