The Empire at Work

by Berry Friesen (September 20, 2016)

The war in Syria, now well into its sixth year, has brought death, injury and displacement to millions of Syrians.  It has been waged since the very beginning by mercenaries trained and/or equipped by a US-led coalition that wants to carve up Syrian territory and overthrow the legitimate government.

You thought Iraq and Libya were horrible?  Syria is worse.

Recent events there provide yet a deeper look into this mechanism of evil. Here are the highlights.

1. During early September, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov negotiated a multi-stage “cessation of hostilities” agreement to prepare the way for an end to the war.  The first stage began September 12.  It called for a week-by-week ceasefire between Russia’s ally (Syria) and the US ally (“moderate” rebels trying to overthrow the Syrian government).  It also made provisions for humanitarian relief and required “moderate” rebels to separate themselves from terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda that have invaded Syria.

2. The Syrian army complied with the ceasefire; the “moderate” rebels continued to attack Syrian government positions and remained embedded in al-Qaeda held areas alongside al-Qaeda fighters.  Some humanitarian aid was delivered, but not nearly enough.

3. Throughout the week of September 12, US military leaders criticized the cessation of hostilities agreement and expressed doubt about complying with the second stage of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement, which requires US-Russia cooperation in targeting and attacking al-Qaeda and Da’esh (Islamic State).

4. On September 17, US-led fighter planes based in Iraq attacked Syrian army forces defending the Deir Ezzor airbase in eastern Syria from a siege by Da’esh.  Nearly 100 government troops were killed and many more were wounded.  Within ten minutes of the US-led air attack, Da’esh fighters attacked and routed Syrian government positions.  As a result of this incident, the city of Deir Ezzor (civilian population of 150,000) is in grave danger of being overrun by Da’esh.

5.  US officials have claimed the attack on Syrian forces was a mistake, but the facts suggest otherwise.  The attack focused on a strategic position the regular Syrian army had held constantly for months, usually under drone surveillance.  Though Da’esh forces were all around, US air power had not been deployed against those forces for two years. Under such circumstances, it is simply not credible to call the attack a mistake, especially not during a ceasefire agreement in which the US had agreed to coordinate with Russia all efforts against Da’esh.  Rather, it appears the attack was designed to force Syrian forces out of another eastern Syrian city, thereby clearing the way for the further carving up of Syria and a Salafist entity in the east.  See this MoonofAlabama commentary for more. (Sept. 21 addition:  see also "Attack on Aid Convoy" by Felicity Arbuthnot.)

6.  On September 19, the Syrian government announced it would not extend the ceasefire beyond the initial week because rebel fighters had not complied with their side of the agreement.

7.  Also on September 19, a convoy of trucks reportedly carrying humanitarian assistance was destroyed in in al-Qaeda-controlled territory.   Western media widely reported that the convoy had been destroyed by an air attack and blamed Syria and Russia. Russian officials have denied the accusation, noting that while the destroyed convoy showed ample evidence of fire, there was little evidence of an air attack.  Though the details remain murky, there is a substantial possibility the entire incident was contrived to rally Western opinion against Syria and its Russian ally.

What are we to make of all of this?

First, the Obama-Kerry attempt to phase down the war against Syria has failed.  The war will continue into the administration of Clinton or Trump.  If Clinton is elected, she will escalate imperial attacks on Syria and heighten the chances of hostilities between the empire and Russia. If the inexperienced Trump is elected, Pentagon and CIA leaders are still likely to have their way, especially given Trump’s inexperience and belligerence.

Second, President Obama has lost control of the military and CIA, each of which actively sabotaged the Kerry-Lavrov agreement and refused to follow Obama’s direction. For more on this, see Mike Whitney’s “Rogue Mission.”  (Sept. 21 addition:  see also "Was It Mutiny?" by Glen Ford.)

Third, within Western news coverage, there is not a word about how the empire is attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria by equipping and training mercenaries to fight with al-Qaeda or Da’esh.  There is not a word about how US officials are resisting Russian overtures to cooperate in defeating al-Qaeda and Da’esh.  There is not a word about how the Syrian government provides protection and support for the millions of Syrian people internally displaced because of the violence of jihadist fighters. What we hear instead are reports designed to demonize the Syrian government and demonstrate the empire’s great humanitarian concern.

This is how international aggression and brutality is laundered and made morally acceptable to the Western public.  For more, see Finian Cunningham’s “Why US Had to Kill the Syrian Ceasefire.”

When we watch television news, listen to National Public Radio or read the headlines on our little screens, the empire’s propaganda engages us with a proposed transaction: give me your credulity and trust in exchange for a tale of humanitarian concern and justice.   Because we Americans naturally want to think of ourselves as good people, many of us eagerly accept the empire’s proposal.

But it’s the devil’s bargain.  Haven’t we seen enough to know that by now?

Going Tribal

by Berry Friesen (September 13, 2016)

One of the off-putting things about the Bible is that it gives such prominence to social and political structures (“tribes” for short).  It starts with a story of liberation from an empire (Egypt), follows with a long and complicated account of “the people of Israel,” transitions to stories from the life of Jesus and the emergence of a network of Jesus-following assemblies, and ends with another account of an empire shamed (Rome).  

Most Westerners (whether “liberal” or “conservative,” it makes little difference in this regard) have no patience with this tribal emphasis because they understand life to be a story about autonomous individuals.

Life isn’t a tribal project (in other words), it’s a personal project fashioned by each individual to the best of his/her ability.  Certainly social and political structures impact how life plays out, but within the dominant Western paradigm those structures (e.g., the empire, corporations, political parties, community institutions, a church or religious network) are taken for granted.  They are not perceived to be important and dynamic characters in life’s drama.

This core dissonance between an individualistic worldview and the Bible’s structural approach explains much of contemporary disinterest in the Bible.  It also explains why questions the Bible regards as important (e.g., What tribe are you?  How does your tribe relate to the empire?) seem so alien to Western ears.

The Christian religion has done its best to overcome this dissonance by reframing the Bible as a story about personal salvation and self-improvement.  That is, each of us as an autonomous individual is estranged from the one who created us and without hope for the future unless we make personal peace with god and find our true purpose via faith in Messiah Jesus.

If Not Empire, What? does not follow conventional Christianity in this reframing exercise. Instead, it accepts the Bible’s structural approach and applies it to modern life.

As we present it, the purpose of Messiah Jesus was “to save the world” (John 3:17) from all that enslaves and destroys. This entails the forging of a tribal identity around “the way” Jesus embodied; it also entails engagement in a struggle, not so much against human enemies (Ephesians 6:12), but against social and political structures that deceive us, exploit us and turn our hearts toward evil.

Co-author John K. Stoner and I briefly outline this perspective in chapter 4 of our book.

Within the biblical worldview, “cultures and their gods, not individuals, create social reality.  How we as individuals perceive the world to work . . . . is shaped by the group with which we identify. Because groups and their gods construct social reality, and because YHWH intends for that reality to be just, liberating and sustainable, the Bible focuses on the transformation of a group to lead the way by example” (pages 25-26).

In short, within the biblical worldview, Earth’s salvation is mediated historically through a righteous tribe committed to YHWH.

What about our personal sinfulness?  John and I write:

“While perceiving each human being to be divided in his/her commitment to what is good, most biblical authors also seemed to have been fully convinced of the human capacity to live in a righteous and peaceful manner according to YHWH’s intention.  .  . . What is decisive is the god one worships and the resulting social milieu in which one lives.  Only a worldview and community animated by YHWH will enable the multitudes (not just a few heroic individuals) to see what is good and . . . embrace it” (Id.)

In other words, we as individuals recognize and desire the way to Earth’s salvation only when we see it embodied in a community (a tribe).

Greg Boyd, an Anabaptist pastor and author from St. Paul, Minnesota, reflects aspects of this approach.  He and his comrades have launched a network-building website called Tribenet.  Boyd intends it “to help kingdom people and communities begin to network together (and) also give all who share our kingdom vision a sense of belonging to a common kingdom tribe.”

Boyd describes the mission of his project this way:

“God is currently birthing a movement that we believe will eventually transform the face of Christianity. All over the globe people are being gripped by a beautiful vision of a Jesus-looking God raising up a Jesus-looking people to transform the world in a Jesus-kind of way. Many of those who have been captivated by this vision no longer feel at home in traditional churches, but they also are unaware of others who share this vision. They therefore feel isolated and without ’a tribe.’

“TribeNet was created in response to the many requests we regularly receive at reknew.org and/or at whchurch.org asking for referrals to kingdom-minded individuals, groups and/or churches in their locale. By allowing kingdom-minded individuals and groups to find each other, it is our hope that TribeNet will help everyone acquire a sense of belonging to an identifiable global tribe and that God will use this site to help shape and expand the kingdom movement that he is raising up.”

All of this is a stretch from prevailing understandings (whether religious or secular) of how the world works and what life is all about.  What’s your response?  Does it make sense to you that the salvation of Earth requires a tribe—yes, many tribes—committed to the way of compassion, forgiveness and nonviolent resistance to evil?

If so, how might you “go tribal?”

Picking Our Poison?

by Berry Friesen (September 7, 2016)

Here in the US the presidential election is only two months away.  The winning margin will be small, we are told; Hillary Rodham Clinton leads at the moment, but Donald Trump remains close enough to catch her.

For those who assume the imperial paradigm (i.e., someone will dominate the world, it may as well be us), the Clinton-Trump contest presents an important choice:  who is better qualified to serve—the experienced insider or the maverick outsider?

In contrast, those who desire an end to US domination of the world have little interest in either Clinton or Trump.  Our votes will go to a third party candidate—either the Green Party’s Jill Stein or the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson. In my case, it will be Stein.

But whether we are emotionally invested in the Trump-Clinton contest or not, their contest provides important insights into what life has become here at the center of the empire.

For instance, consider the commentary of Gary Luepp.  He calls the entire election campaign “an exercise in mendacity.”  Clinton brazenly lies about her emails and about Benghazi (Libya) and she won the Democrat nomination through the lying and cheating of the Democratic National Committee. Trump brazenly throws out false statements nearly every day about whatever topic he happens to be addressing. Even on his signature issue—illegal immigration—he can’t be trusted.

Everyone knows this, yet the rank dishonesty of both candidates is not seen as embarrassing, much less disqualifying.  Instead, most people say, we must dutifully choose one or the other.

As Luepp puts it sarcastically, “So what that the whole system is soaked in shit? It’s the best system in the world, damn it, so just wade through it and enjoy the stench for the duration.”

Hmmn.  How long, exactly, is “the duration?”  Has “mendacity” come to define the empire itself, not just the presidential campaign?

For a second example, consider the commentary of Daniel Lazare, who asks: “Who’s the most right-wing presidential candidate of all?”  Writes Lazare, “The answer used to be Donald Trump, famous for his naked bigotry toward Mexicans and Muslims.”  But that was before Clinton started attacking Trump from the right “for failing to embrace the ultra-imperialist doctrine of ‘American exceptionalism’.”

Here is Clinton, speaking August 31 to the American Legion convention in Cincinnati: “If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this. The United States is an exceptional nation . . . And part of what makes America an exceptional nation, is that we are also an indispensable nation.”

Part of this “indispensability” in Clinton’s view is that “when America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum that either causes chaos or other countries or networks rush in to fill the void.”  So America has a responsibility to provide “leadership,” according to Clinton: “The decisions we make and the actions we take affect millions even billions of lives.”

In her speech, Clinton also promised to respond to foreign cyber-attacks with military means and to take on the world’s dictators.  “All this,” writes Lazare, “from a woman whose family foundation has received up to $25 million from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most repressive government on earth, plus up to $50 million from other Persian Gulf sources.”

Hmmn.  Is there a connection between Trump’s “naked bigotry” toward Muslims and Mexicans here at home and Clinton’s dominating “leadership” abroad?  Might the arrogance and violence of US policies over there be bleeding inexorably into our lives here at home?

Mendacity and bigotry:  two troubling features of this presidential campaign—and of the empire in which it is embedded.

Heads Up on 9/11 Conspiracies

by Berry Friesen (September 1, 2016)

(Sept. 7, 2016 update: Just published by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, "World Trade Center Physics:  Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse."  Framed as a communication to engineers and other building professionals, this 16-page, illustrated pamphlet explains why over 2,600 architects and structural engineers have called for a new investigation of the failure of three World Trade Center towers on 9/11.)

It’s been fifteen years since the 9/11 attacks, long enough for a sorting out to take place.

That is, somewhere around one-third of the US population is skeptical of at least part of the official conspiracy theory (OCT), which is the one we encounter in mainstream media publications. (For a satirical, 5-minute overview of the OCT, click here.)  The majority of the US population tacitly accepts the OCT and doesn’t think much about it anymore, secure in the knowledge that that virtually everyone with public stature is of the same point of view.

This split is firmly in place and not a lot of people are openly changing sides.

In part, this is because it is costly to do so. I recall a conversation with an editor at my local newspaper about a skeptical 9/11 essay I had submitted for publication.  “We can’t print this,” she objected; “it would ruin your reputation.”

Why contrasting understandings about an event as significant as 9/11 would have the power to ruin reputations is a complex story in itself.  In part, it’s because the mainstream media has foisted a don’t-you-dare-question-9/11 attitude upon us by stigmatizing OCT skeptics as cranks and nutcases.  Thus, it simply refuses to publish articles critical of the OCT.  To be fair, it’s also important to acknowledge that among 9/11 skeptics are a number of cranks and nutcases.  It does take work to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 9/11.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is one organization you can depend on for reliable data and analysis.  At the heart of its skepticism is a group of 2,600+ certified architects and structural engineers who have put their professional reputations on the line by calling for a new investigation as to the cause of the failure of the three World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11. This organization’s “evidence” page is outstanding!

All of this is by way of introduction.  My point in posting this essay is to alert readers to the fact that notwithstanding the risks associated with 9/11 dissent, bit-by-bit the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is coming undone.  Those who want to appear well-informed increasingly will need to find a way to sagely and ever-so-cautiously acknowledge the “difficulties” in the official theory.

Toward that end, here is some of what you need to know.

1. The destruction of the two WTC towers hit by passenger planes.
At least 44 heavy steel box columns resting on bedrock and running vertically to the very top supported the gravity load of each tower.  According to the OCT, those columns were crushed simultaneously by the falling top portion of the building, which became unsupported due to the damage at the point of airplane impact and the resulting fires.

Why did those heavy columns not stop or at least slow the descent of the top portion of the building?  The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has never explained this, but its official report referenced an explanation developed by Zdenek Bazant, a civil engineering professor at Northwestern University. Meanwhile, Bazant’s work has been substantially challenged by other engineers (see here and here and here) as based on false assumptions and errors of fact.  But NIST has refused to acknowledge this engineering controversy, as have mainstream media.

Video footage from 9/11 shows that when the top portions of the damaged towers began to fall and struck the intact lower portions of the towers, there was not so much as a jolt of impact.  This defies the laws of physics.  In addition, what the absence of a jolt strongly suggests is that the supportive strength of those core columns had been removed through the use of explosives, a possibility NIST has refused to investigate.

2.  The destruction of the third WTC tower (“Building 7”).
This steel-framed, 47-story tower was not hit by an airplane; it sustained exterior damage from falling debris and internal damage due to short-duration office fires. It collapsed in highly symmetrical fashion into its own footprint shortly after 5:00 on the afternoon of 9/11.  When viewed via video, it looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

Further complicating the matter is the fact (acknowledged by NIST) that for a portion of time during the collapse, the building fell at free fall speed, meaning the supporting steel structure provided zero resistance to the collapse.  This is impossible to achieve without somehow moving the lower steel structure out of the way in advance of the fall.

A steel-framed tower of this nature has never collapsed in such a fashion except through the use of explosives.  Again, however, NISP has refused to investigate this possibility.

Instead, using computer modeling, NIST finally concluded in 2008 that the expansive effect of heat caused a supportive girder to move off its seat, precipitating wholesale building collapse.  This finding has been challenged by engineers on numerous technical grounds, including errors NIST made in modeling the connective components of the girder in question.  NIST has refused to release the full computer modeling on which it based its findings, saying it “might jeopardize public safety” to provide that level of detail.

See here and here for additional details.

3. The composition of the dust.
The dust that blanketed Manhattan on 9/11 is a rich source of data about what happened inside those towers on that day.  For example, the presence of billions of distinctive iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust was documented by several testing labs in 2004 and 2005. These microspheres form at extremely high temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron (~2,700° F). Such high temperatures could not have been produced by jet fuel or office building fires, which reach only up to 1,800 °F under the most severe conditions.

Also found in the dust are tiny red/gray chips.  In April 2009, a team of scientists that included physicist Steven Jones (formerly BYU), chemist Niels Harrit (University of Copenhagen, Denmark), physicist Jeffrey Farrer (BYU), and six other authors published their findings regarding the red/gray chips in the peer-reviewed paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” After detailing their findings, the research team concluded that the red layer of the red/ gray chips “is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology,” and that it “is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

This peer-reviewed research has not been challenged or refuted by any other peer-reviewed study.  It stands today as evidence (see also here) of high-powered explosive residue in the dust of 9/11.

4.  The absence of air defense in response to the hijackings.
The failure of the US military to intercept the four hijacked passenger planes as they meandered through hundreds of miles in US airspace is as inexplicable today as it was on 9/11.  Pentagon officials have provided several explanations, each materially different from those given previously, and repeatedly have blamed the discrepancies on the lies and/or incompetence of prior Pentagon witnesses.  Yet no one in the Pentagon bureaucracy has ever been disciplined for this mammoth failure.

Kevin Ryan, one of the premier 9/11 researchers, has neatly summarized this aspect of the controversy.  I recommend his article to those who want more details.

5. The role of Saudi Arabia in the conspiracy.
Recent disclosures from the Joint Congressional Investigation of 9/11 confirm that highly placed Saudi officials and wealthy Saudi individuals supported at least some of the young men who are alleged to have hijacked the four passenger planes on 9/11.  This information was known at the time by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and by the National Security Administration (NSA).  Yet the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 has long been obscured in the OCT, replaced by blame directed at Iraq and Afghanistan.

More disclosures of a similar nature are likely to be forthcoming as a result of litigation.  Alleged hijackers “training” in Florida may also have received extensive support from Saudi nationals living there.

6. The role of torture in eliciting the story of al-Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11.
Most of the details about al-Qaeda’s role in the hijackings on 9/11 came from the testimony of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zuhaydah, two allegedly senior members of al-Qaeda in CIA custody. More than one-quarter of the footnotes in the final report of the 9/11 Commission cited their testimony, including details about al-Qaeda’s planning and execution of the attacks on 9/11.

Subsequently, it has been revealed that (a) both men had been tortured (including waterboarding) in the process of obtaining their testimony about 9/11; (b) Abu Zuhaydah had never been associated with al-Qaeda in any capacity; and (c) CIA personnel had destroyed the videotapes of the men’s “confessions,” an unlawful act that while criminal has gone unpunished.

Testimony obtained via torture is notoriously unreliable. To end the pain, people will say whatever interrogators want them to say.  Yet most of what we “know” about al-Qaeda and 9/11 was obtained in precisely this way.
-------------------------

In response to all of this and more, those loyal to the OCT insist it just could not be that powerful insiders within US government and corporate structures were part of the 9/11 conspiracy.  Why not?  Because “that’s crazy” or “you couldn’t keep something like that secret” or “I have more trust than that in our leaders.”

These are the protests of people who don’t want 9/11 to have been an inside job.  I understand and join that desire.  And yes, it is “crazy” to think about insiders conspiring to bring about 9/11.

But as for keeping secrets, what secrets exactly?  As this brief post has already demonstrated, a significant amount of evidence of internal conspiracy is already out in the open for all to see.  Yet the evidence has not led to accountability.

And as for “trust,” well, let’s not forget what US leaders have done over the years to people living in such places such as Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.  Perhaps our “trust” needs to be tempered a bit; perhaps the violence of the empire occasionally turns inward as well as outward.

Our Existential Choice

by Berry Friesen (August 23, 2016)

The prophetic thread running through the Bible is committed not to reforming the empire, but to replacing it with something called the “kingdom of God.”   That’s the core stance of If Not Empire, What?

Writers within this biblical tradition desired the end of imperial rule, but they also regarded that end to be inevitable.  Why inevitable?  Because YHWH—the god those writers worshipped as the source of life—is compassionate, forgiving and opposed to injustice and oppression. 

For Second Testament writers there was a second reason:  YHWH had exalted Jesus of Nazareth—the man who lived compassion, forgiveness and nonviolent resistance to evil—by raising him from the dead.

When it comes to the empire, in other words, the prophetic biblical witness is not to reform the empire so that it is gentler, less ruthless and more long-lasting, but to resist it in a way that is consistent with the character of YHWH.  That is, with compassion toward the many dependent on the empire for their daily bread, with a spirit of forgiveness toward one another as we struggle to escape the grasp of imperial deceptions and policies, and with nonviolent practices that create an alternative to the empire’s ruthless methods and despairing future.

Resistance may strike many readers as an extreme proposition, especially during an election year when supposedly we have the power to decide who will lead the empire (or at least be its public face) during the next four years.  Don’t we have the capacity to improve the empire by who we vote into office?

This is the assumption within which most Americans operate (religious folks included). According to this perspective, the US-led empire is different from all those before it—more benevolent, less ravenous, more peace-loving, less violent.  We ought to support it, not resist it.

Events of recent years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Honduras, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen flatly contradict this illusion of imperial exceptionality.  Even under the so-called liberal President Obama, the US-led empire has functioned internationally as a criminal enterprise using violence and threats of violence to create chaos and extort control.      

Here at home we see evidence of the same spirit of domination in the militarization of policing and the frequent use of lethal violence against civilians.  We see it as well in the popular infatuation with guns, the open efforts to suppress voting by racial minorities, and the passage of trade, banking and tax laws that enrich the wealthy elite while depriving the working class of jobs. 

Of course, those whose understanding of the world depends on National Public Radio, the New York Times, cable news and the big-name wire services know little of this.  As they see it, the US-led empire isn’t in control of much of anything; mainly, it bumbles along doing the best it can in a tragic world not of its making. For those with this perspective, reform makes perfect sense, electing a new President of the US is a big deal, and Clinton vs. Trump feels like a question of nearly existential significance. 

But for those who have crossed over to the other side (both in how they read the Bible and in where they get their news), the US-led empire is simply the latest incarnation of the “darkness” and “death” of which the Bible speaks (Col. 1:13).  For such people, the existential question is not Clinton vs. Trump, but how to align today’s living with an anti-imperial alternative that reflects the character of YHWH.

Our book title (If Not Empire, What?) assumes readers are convinced of the urgency of forging an anti-imperial alternative.   But of course, most living in the West—religious or otherwise—are far from convinced. Instead, they remain hopeful that with a leader who is a little smarter and a bit more principled, the entity that has brought us continuous war and ruthless state terrorism will change its spots. 

That’s a far cry from the prophetic thread within the Bible, which imagines the humiliation of the great powers ruling the world, disarmed by the way of Jesus (Col. 2:15). 

Hard to believe, I know, so hard that it’s easy to see why many have embraced a christianity that avoids this entire subject.  Yet there it is, in the Bible:  the great existential question isn’t who we will elect for President, but whether we expect the way of empire or the way of Jesus to save Earth and all who live here.     

A Stateless Politics - Part 2

by Berry Friesen (August 15, 2016)

Two readers offered substantive responses to my previous post on “A Stateless Politics.” 

CM from California wrote:  “Quite a feat to write a whole post on anarchism without using the term! Seriously, though, why not use the occasion of this post to at least mention the thin tradition of Christian anarchism over the last 150 years?  Just curious.”

CM, yes, the stateless character of the prophetic biblical witness does have important connections to anarchism. 

Anarchism points us away from the state, just as the prophetic biblical witness does.  Each insists the state is not a solution to the violence and insecurity of our world, but instead a significant source of that violence and insecurity.

Anarchism and the prophetic biblical witness also share an emphasis on informal ways to “establish” peace at the grassroots level.  Both are realistic about the importance of authority in community life, but in contrast to those holding a top-down orientation, each views authority as most effectively mediated informally through social and economic norms and structures.  The emphasis is on informal cultural power, not formal state power.

Of course, the prophetic biblical tradition is rooted in its understanding of YHWH and the shared experience of communities committed to YHWH.  It is a religious viewpoint, in other words.  In contrast, anarchism as a belief system dedicated to the abolition of government is an ideology, one difficult to support by reference to the biblical tradition, in my opinion.

CR from Iowa wrote:  “A stateless politics is as idealistic as a church without politics.”  He went on: "The processes of decision-making and authority are parallel in regional, state, national and international scale organizations, whether they are church-based or [overtly] political organizations.  War is the failure of nonviolent decision-making organizations [of whatever type].  . . . The religious, consensus-based pacifists [who refuse] to lend their voices, votes, time and money to the [overt] political process is a negative and a tragedy, in my view.”

CR, I haven’t attempted to mount a general argument for a stateless politics. States provides benefits as well as burdens/threats, and life in some places of the world would be much worse without them.  Witness the empire’s deadly desire to destroy states in places such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, thereby rendering residents of those places highly vulnerable to exploitation by private interests.   

But yes, as you say, political behavior is certainly as present in church life as in the realm of government.

My point is that communities shaped by the prophetic biblical witness create a multifaceted life that shapes behavior, enables commerce, encourages human creativity and protects safety/security.  This is accomplished by providing a better way, not by imposing top-down power.  Because it is practically attractive and life-giving, it can also be self-organizing, not by capturing the levers of coercion but by winning the heart-felt commitment of people.

Often this kind of “politics” is separatist and sectarian, but it doesn’t have to be.  It can exchange ideas, data and best practices with local governments, for example.  In the biblical record, we see many positive examples of such (though at the imperial level, not so much). 

So as I see it, the power of the prophetic biblical witness is in modeling another way to live in the world, including norms, expectations, structures and prototypes that are life-giving.

Is Trump's Candidacy a Covert Op?

by Berry Friesen (Aug. 10, 2016)

I’ve been mulling this possibility since last August, when Trump and his supporters showed us that a Trump run for President had to be taken seriously.

I do not know the answer to my question, but in the paragraphs that follow I will outline why I increasingly am inclined to regard this “election from hell” as a covert op. 

As I said in “A Dog in This Fight?”, the empire carries out covert ops all around the world to create desired change. Why not here?

By “covert op,” I mean a secret conspiracy of agencies of the US government (probably the FBI, CIA, NSA), working together with private “security” contractors and elements of organized crime to achieve specific results in the 2016 presidential election.

For those who reject “conspiracy thinking” across-the-board, spend a couple of hours reading about how the Democratic National Committee (DNC) conspired to make sure Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Democratic nomination.  Then come back here to finish this post.

What is the purpose of this covert op (if it exists)?

Primarily, the purpose is to elect Clinton as the next President. 

She is a member of the imperial elite and can be counted on to advance the imperial agenda, both in the US and globally:  undermine independent bases of power and authority (culture, religion, nationalism, fiefdoms, etc.); use debt to shift public wealth into private hands; financialize the economy so that Wall Street rules. The military, covert intelligence agencies and proxy terror groups are the enforcers in this game plan. In Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine, Clinton has established a clear record of using such “allies” to advance private interests.  She can be trusted to authorize more violence when “needed.”

A second purpose of a covert op within this election is to restore the legitimacy of the US democracy. Many millions of Americans are convinced that the US political system has been corrupted by the moneyed elite.  Participation in voting has been weak; turn-out among the voting-age population has not reached 60 percent since 1968. 

This threatens the legitimacy of the agendas advanced by the President and other political leaders.  So this election must generate high popular participation, including more voting. 

Third, within the Republican Party is a group of mavericks who refuse to follow the imperial script (more Wall Street control, more surveillance, more use of the US military in world events).  Members of this group oppose increased surveillance, oppose war without congressional authorization, oppose energetic government action in response to crisis, and refuse to follow blindly their leadership. 

The growth in this sentiment within a major player in the system must be stopped.  Discrediting this maverick point-of-view and making it political death to go off-the-reservation (as politicians such Rep. Walter Jones or Senator Rand Paul have) is necessary in order to restore stability.

How would such a covert op be implemented?

A populist candidate who engages the disaffected would be provided the resources to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President, but then would conduct a post-convention campaign that almost inevitably produces failure in the General Election. 

Cooperation of the key players in this plan would need to be secured.  For Trump and Bernie Sanders, the opportunity to gain the attention of the nation and launch “political revolutions” would be sufficient inducement; for Clinton, certain victory would make it all worthwhile.  Major media executives who decide how to “cover” the news are already part of the imperial elite; their support can be counted on.  The same is true of the top leaders of the two major political parties.

How has it been implemented?

Mainstream media ushered Trump onto the national stage in the late spring of 2015 by amplifying his attention-seeking statements.  They kept Trump in the spotlight for a solid 15 months.  This is highly unusual behavior in response to a maverick candidate who has very little establishment support. FOX News played a major role in this (even though Trump was highly critical of FOX News), but other leading television networks and news outlets have responded similarly.

On the left, Sanders campaigned energetically and successfully in opposition to two aspects of Clinton's record:  Wall Street's stifling hold on the US economy and international trade agreements that benefited primarily the 1 percent. Inexplicably, he said little-to-nothing about Clinton's reckless use of confidential documents or her falsehoods to the American people about that conduct. Likewise, Sanders avoided criticism of Clinton's foreign policy record, which has served the interests of al-Qaeda while failing to protect US interests.

Since Trump's nomination as the Republican candidate, he has performed poorly.  Rather than building momentum on his convention success and the popularity of several of his policy proposals (opposition to international trade agreements and the extension of US military force around the world; support for the expulsion of certain groups of refugees and illegal immigrants and a return to an economy based on production, not financial manipulation), Trump instead has distracted his audience with off-topic controversies.

Prominent Republican leaders have responded to Trump’s unfocused and controversy-laden campaign by openly disavowing him.  Other Republican leaders in the foreign policy establishment—especially the Republican neo-cons—have committed their support to Clinton.  Numerous Republican officials in the “national security” establishment have declared Trump is “dangerous.” Together, this has caused a drop in support for Trump among college-educated Republicans and Independents, even while Trump’s support among the disaffected blue-color portion of the electorate remains strong.

Generally, throughout the pre-convention and post-convention phases of the campaign, Republican voices of opposition have been too-little-too-late, never attempting to cut Trump off at the pass, but always waiting to act until he is safely in the clear. 

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has continued to report about Trump’s statements in a way that attracts the disaffected while alarming those loyal to the process.

For example, Trump’s recent comment that in the event of a Clinton victory, Second Amendment devotees may have an alternative to the loss of Amendment-secured rights has been reported as encouragement to assassinate Clinton, even though it shows Trump to be referring instead to some sort of insurrection in the event of a Clinton victory.  Thus, both the disaffected and those loyal to the system have been energized.

How will this end?

If this is “a fixed fight” (as I suggest it is), then Trump will continue to engage the disaffected and alienate the rest of the electorate with outrageous antics and statements.  If there are more moderate and liberal voters driven to the polls by this approach than disaffected voters, then Clinton will certainly win.

Trump will do what is necessary to lose, in other words. That’s what the script calls for.

What difference does any of this make for you and me?

Always, our question must be how to use our time and energy.  Will we expend it on the drama and theatrics of what probably is a staged event leading to a Clinton presidency?  Or on helping to build an entirely different base of moral and political authority than our existing two-party system?  For me, as YHWH gives me breath, it will be the latter.