Mercenary Heart

Why We Care For Some,
And Yet Neglect All Others...
(PLUCK series)

(Athens woman repeatedly kicks Romani child...)

The image of the 'humanitarian' is one that far too many try to hide behind. As for me, and most the team here, being called a 'humanitarian' is one of the greatest insults we could ever strive for. For me the term is one I have come to regard with a tremendous amount of disdain. It is nearly as much a disgraceful title to me as labeling oneself a Democrat, Republican, or by any other political or religious affiliation. For it is a title that the bleeding hearts hypocritically hide behind, an image of caring for all of humanity while tragically wrapping one's self in a given flag of their choosing. It is a term that carries no real weight or meaning. It is hollow and only serves to mask the one wearing it in much the same way cowards hide behind Guy Fawkes while reading from scripts. It's inherently heartless.

It may very well be part of human nature, and if it is then I've lost something inside, to first focus on one's own particular group before branching out to help others. We even came up with a term for it and yet rarely apply said term to it... ethnocentrism. 

Rally Around The Family

We have all heard of Gaza, the West Bank, and the rest of Palestine's many oppressed regions. We have all seen pictures and heard the stories of Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation and oppression. Of course this is not how large portions of 'humanitarians' see it. And by me pointing out the fact that we have (those of us they spend all day preaching to) I will undoubtedly be called a Zionist or some deviation of that talking point. Yet that isn't really my intent.

Endless hashtags and real life efforts are constantly made to help bring justice to the Palestinians. This is an admirable goal and far worthwhile effort on behalf of those who do dedicate so much of their time to it. But it's often not a 'humanitarian' cause. It is more often than not a religious and/or political goal by those who so strongly defend it. While there are those who dedicate their time to this cause with the end goal bringing the recognition of Palestinians' basic human rights, there are also those who (the majority) want far more than that. 

"From river to sea, all of Palestine will be free"

This is not the slogan of a purely 'humanitarian' cause. Do I agree with the premise of it? Yes. But can I agree with the proposed belief that those who promote it are somehow humanitarians? Hell no. 

This is most evident when somebody like me, arguably the natural born enemy in the eyes of so-called humanitarians, steps out and defends the rights of Palestinians. One would expect that the people pushing the slogan mentioned above would find it relieving to see a Jewish voice speaking out for Palestinians. And one would be wrong. Because, as time has proven rather repeatedly, there isn't a place for Jewish voices that don't agree 100% with the rest of the message. The only Jewish voices allowed are those that can be groomed, maintained, and propagandized for the cause. All others that dare go against the grain are more or less the enemy.

Now, like I have stated before, the humanitarian is supposed to be a person who cares about all of humanity. Yet in "humanitarian" causes such as Palestine/Israel the root of the cause becomes rather clear when just barely scratching the surface. The less than humane responses show a more political and racial undertone to what should had remained a cause centered around the actual people it affects.

The first of these is the response that immediately questions the "Jewishness" of the Jewish voice Palestinian supporters don't agree with. This is best shown when Palestinian supporters (largely not Palestinians themselves) immediately start in with myths taken right out of Nazism. Some will go as far as to start questioning the bloodlines of Jewish people to outright proposing that no "real Jews" even exist today. Of course this is hard to combat when one is the source of their frustration. And even harder to segregate from the true supporters of Palestinian rights when they themselves will not cull the racists among them.

The political undertones are brought to the surface when Palestinian supporters routinely and intentionally use the words "Zionists" and "Jews" interchangeably. While more honest supporters of Palestine can and often do recognize that Jews lived in Palestine long before Israel was created, these problematic supporters do not. Their agenda focuses around the goal of isolating Jews on one end of the spectrum while disproportionately amplifying the voices of Muslims they agree with. To do this many will downplay the damage groups like Hamas and Hezbollah do to the already fragile peace process. And much like the Israeli leadership, they will always downplay the atrocities their side commits while exaggerating the actions of the others side. And this is where the mixing of the words Zionism and Judaism come into play. By accusing "Jews" of every atrocious act they belittle the actions of Zionists and create an atmosphere in which all Jews are the "enemy".

Of course I could use just about any conflict or genocide currently happening in the world to illustrate how people who call themselves "humanitarians" are far less than concerned with humanity. And in every scenario I could show just how their priorities center around group specific interests rather than that of all the people involved. So lets jump to another part of the globe and try this again.

In Southeast Asia the "humanitarians" we deal with on a daily basis have come to the conclusion that the Rohingya people are the "world's most persecuted people". This is of course highly inaccurate as it makes a claim that is both unfounded and incapable of being proven. Yet the focus on humanitarian issues in Southeast Asia is routinely monopolized by humanitarians dead set on centering it all on one particular group.

In neighboring Bangladesh the Jumma tribes of the Chittagong Hills have suffered colonization, ethnic cleansing, and military occupation for literally centuries. Their oppressors have included the British, Indians, Pakistanis, and Bengalis. Yet the story of their persecution has largely been overshadowed by that of the Rohingya on the flood plains to their east. They are a people who's story directly mirrors that of the Rohingya and yet even Rohingya activists seem oblivious to their plight.

Venturing down the peninsula to Vietnam there are the Montagnards (Degar tribes) who suffer routine harassment for their religious and cultural beliefs. They have been through massacres since the 9th century and have seen their homeland occupied for nearly just as long. The military and politicians in Vietnam all work tirelessly to make their ghetto like villages miserable while creating discriminatory laws against the Montagnards. And over the last several years there has been an exodus taking place in the forests between Vietnam and Cambodia. Yet once again the focus on humanitarian issues is not permitted to venture away from the Arakan. And once again the humanitarians who say they care for all of humanity remain deaf to the sounds of suffering in Vietnam's hills.

Examples like these are numerous in Southeast Asia. One only has to look to the Karen, Kachin, Shan, Chin, and Kokang in Myanmar itself. This doesn't even include the tribes in the Philippines or the Hmong in Vietnam and Laos. Even with this broader picture you would have to widen it even more to focus on the tribal peoples of Nepal and how their cultures are facing extinction if nothing changes. Yet none of these are put into focus as so-called humanitarians demand the world only center it's attention on one particular group in Southeast Asia.

Now I myself have and often do focus my attention on the Rohingya in Myanmar. My team here at Alder's Ledge do a lot well beyond this blog (which has countless posts covering the Rohingya) to help. Yet we also make certain that the focus we give Southeast Asia also covers all other peoples and all other causes that arise. We center our attention on the tribal groups and persecuted minorities while also focusing on Southeast Asia's rampant sex trade and human trafficking.

The main reason for highlighting this is to bring everyone who reads this back down to reality. The world is much larger than any stretch of dirt and far more vast than any given individual group of people. The pain and suffering of people across the globe can obviously not be covered by one give person or any particular group. Yet the reasons why we tend to block out other people's stories and ignore their pain is something worth thinking about.

In Europe the popular social cause of the day is oddly focused on America's police and black communities. Yet Europeans have an entire minority that they have treated far worse for far longer a period of time... the Romani people.

In America the focus when it comes to humanitarian causes is almost always focused outward. And when it does center in on Americans it almost always gets focused on America's black population. Yet America has indigenous communities that are disappearing under a system of coerced assimilation. Many of America's indigenous youth can't speak the native languages of their ancestors. And even shift the focus to Native Americans for a minute would overlook the plight of countless immigrant groups that also suffer exclusion in American society due to a host of reasons.

So what is the answer to all of this?

Is there even a such thing as a true humanitarian?

"Fatal To Prejudice"

In all honesty there probably isn't such a thing. When it comes down to it we all have less than pure intentions when it comes to helping others. While I do believe that there are plenty of people who deeply care for others... I don't believe there are as many people out there who actually deeply care for all of mankind. But that's not to say that people can't learn to do so.

Taking time away from a given cause to focus your attention on a different one isn't the end of the world. The Palestinians will, as sad as it is, probably be just as oppressed tomorrow as they are today. And the Rohingya will most likely need just as much help even if you aren't the one there for them today. Yet you (and this is the less than "pure" intentions behind most of this work) do have a need to grow. It is the reason why people decide to reach out beyond themselves and help others. A thirst to grow and leave a mark on the world around them. And chances are that you started with groups to which you can relate and have something in common with.

One of the best ways to grow as a person is to reach well beyond the boundaries of what is comfortable and familiar. It creates in us a greater understanding of the world around us while ironically also generating endless questions about the world we encounter along the way. By helping people who we have no real connection to we come to better understand cultures and places we previously only had preconceived notions about. As Mark Twain put it, "travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness". Which is exactly why more of us need to reach out to causes beyond our own.

It would be interesting to see just how differently the approach to our own personal causes might be if more of us spent some time focused on other causes first. Yet in writing this I am more aware that it will most likely be met with hostility and resentment rather than seen as the challenge it was meant to present to you the reader. So with that said, I would hope that most of you will understand this wasn't written out of spite or frustration but rather was a blunt analysis of everyone who calls themselves humanitarians. If you consider yourself one then this is meant to show you how I personally believe we can do better.

Willful Ignorance

Turning A Blind Eye To Religious Savagery
(part of the PLUCK series)

(Joseph Goebbels and Wilhelm Frick with Catholic clergy)

There are few things that modern society leaves off-limits when it comes to polite conversation. For the most part, however, religion happens to be one of those last topics for debate that we tend to shy away from. It is, for lack of a better analogy, the sacred cow even when it comes to human rights. We are supposed to accept that religion is a sensitive subject and that all of mankind is entitled to their own views on it. As a society we tend to even take this view to the most obscene stance so as to ignore religion when it is the root of some of the worst atrocities in history. Thus allowing ourselves the opportunity to overlook it's ongoing role in such crimes as genocide.

It is no secret that some of the worst genocides in history were driven by the hatred that organized religion can be used to manufacture within a society. The Ottoman Turks capitulated to the aggressive abuse of Islam under The Young Turks during the genocides of the Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians. 60 million Germans permitted their government to hijack their churches during the Nazi's genocidal effort to annihilate Judaism across Europe. And yet we as a society still tiptoe around the issue of religious fervor when it comes to genocide?

Was it not Christianity that was abused when the Europeans set out to make the Native Americans "civilized"? And yet we still celebrate the colonization of America under the justification of religious zealotry (example: Columbus Day)?

If ever we are to make any ground in combating genocide then we must first recognize one of the roots from which it has historically arose. And that is the willingness of the pious to turn a blind eye to the dramatic misuse of their faith in attempts to destroy members of another race, religion, or ethnicity.

Mixing Islam And Nationalism

"Turkey belongs only to the Turks."
~ Talat Pasha

For almost 100 years the "best and brightest" minds have tried to explain the rise of the Young Turks in the Ottoman Empire by linking their violence to blind patriotism. While the explanation of radical nationalism may be accurate to an extent, it is woefully inadequate to explain how the Young Turks targeted their victims. The very core of their battle cry, that of an Islamic state, points not toward a secular version of nationalism but rather religious pandering for political gain.

The main area in which the Young Turk's "revolution" promoted religious bigotry was the it's insistence upon the implementing of "Ottomanism" across Turkey. This process readily classified members of society into "millets", or classes based upon religion and race. The process also, though argued to create unity and equality, allowed a for radical leaders within the Young Turks to selfishly promote their given religion as superior. Therefore, Ottomanism permitted the three Pashas the power to lift Islam above all other religions and create the possibility to force out other faiths from the Ottoman Empire and all it's territories.

Many Muslims did oppose Ottomanism. But by the time they dared to make their voices heard it was already too late. The Young Turks had been given power by pandering to the religious and nationalistic fervor that they themselves helped to cultivate. In areas the Young Turks didn't have popular support they manufactured it with propaganda. And when that didn't work... muscle always did.


Where Ottomanism, in it's original political packaging, had be presented to promote equality amongst Muslims and non-Muslims alike the implementing of it was drastically different. Young Turk members readily gave into corruption from their own making and from social influences. Their treatment of the non-Muslims across the empire never seemed to truly reflect the ideas they promoted in Istanbul. And for the non-Muslims across the empire, the changing of power in Istanbul often appeared to be the swapping of one evil for another. The lives of these less fortunate subjects of the Ottomans never really changed... or at least until the Pashas' next stage of "Turkification".

By 1914 the Three Pashas had found their opportunity to begin what would later go on to be named genocide. In their time these acts were labeled as massacres, pogroms, deportations, and often just called "unfortunate consequences of war". When the Pashas ordered the outright slaughter of Assyrians and Greeks the Muslim populace of Turkey appeared to accept the culling of Turkey's population based upon religion. When the Turkish military was presented with the opportunity to punish Muslim citizens for looting and killing of Assyrians and Greeks the government readily looked the other way. For the Pashas it was their way of declaring it legal for "true Turks" to reclaim Turkey.

In 1915 Talat Pasha got his chance to go after the Armenians as well. The man who would become known to many as "the Turkish Hitler" readily began deportations of Armenians. During this drastic abuse of even the most basic of human rights, Talat Pasha rewarded Muslims with stolen Armenian goods and land. Talat went as far as to permit his military, along with local Muslim volunteers, the "right" to rape, pillage, and kill Armenians as the Ottoman Empire carried out the deportations. Rape camps and sexual slavery became a common way for the Turks to suppress Armenian society and target the women within it. Thus giving Talat his end goal of destroying Armenian culture by removing half it's population with rape and killing the other half outright.

Throughout the Armenian Genocide, as well as during the Greek and Assyrian genocides, the Pashas made a point of labeling the targeted communities as "indigenous Christians". Their goal of distinguishing between Muslims and Christians was a clear attempt at classification, the first stage of genocide, through which they could isolate the targeted victims. When this was accomplished the Young Turks went to the third stage of genocide (dehumanization) by characterizing Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians as traitors to the Ottoman Empire. In carrying out these two stages of genocide the Young Turks were able to mobilize an entire nation behind religious and nationalistic motives for the ultimate goal of annihilating the victims.

Had the world responded to the use of religion and nationalism to commit such horrific crimes it is plausible that Germany would have been more hesitant to recreate the Pashas' crimes on an even larger scale.

Industrialized Murder And The Church

“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the
fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission
assigned to it by the Creator.”

~ Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf'

The connection between the church, both the Protestant and Catholic, and the Nazi party in Germany is one that was at times rocky... to say the least. Yet the willingness on behalf of Germany's Christians to accept the antisemitism within Hitler's message cannot be ignored. Like the Turkish Muslims, the Christians in Europe were sold a message that lifted them above an enemy they were far too willing to accept. Though there was no real reason to hate their Jewish neighbors, the Christians of Germany collectively can be seen as giving into social pressure to do just that. It became far too easy for the church in Europe to accept the hatred of a few over the love they claimed to have for the many.

One of the main reasons given for the acceptance of the Nazi's politically backed persecution of Europe's Jews is that of well ingrained antisemitism in Europe at the time. Christians in Europe had been raised with interpretations of the Bible that depicted the Jews as the "killers of Christ". Their hatred was further spurned on by the continual preaching that came from Europe's pulpits. When the Great Depression spread across the globe it was the Jewish population that was demonized for causing it. And the church, or a large portion of it, was far too willing to preach this exact message from their position of religious authority.

"The Church has realized that anything and everything can be
built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or
irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long
as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."

~ Adolf Hitler

In 1920 the Nazi Party's platform reflected this antisemitism as it promised Germany that it; "upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit..." This pandering to an antisemitic culture already well established allowed for the Nazis to get the "faithful" to swallow what Hitler had in store for Germany next.

When Hitler started the Holocaust with the euthanizing of "socially undesirables" and the "non-productive elements" of German society it was the Church's first chance to speak up. Yet the German people accepted that the mentally handicapped, the antisocial, and the repeat criminals were a "burden upon the state". This was once again also presented to the Church in the Nazi's 1920 platform when the Nazis stated, "a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good." It was a decree that gave the state the authority to decide who lived and who died. Yet the Church was willing to "swallow it whole".


Some have depicted this willingness by the Church to appease Hitler's genocidal ambitions as a mere survival method. And it is true that this strategy of following closely behind party ideology did permit the German Church the ability to survive in a state that officially did not recognize any given faith. By cooperating with the Nazis the Church was able to keep it's infrastructure largely intact throughout Nazi rule. Yet the goal of appeasement cannot be written off by merely depicting it as a survival strategy alone.

During Hitler's rule of Germany there were large chunks of the Evangelical Christians who willingly set out to achieve the Nazi goal of creating a "Judenrein" Europe. The Deutsche Christen movement within the Evangelical Church went as far as to push for the "nazification" of the Church itself. Their willingness to cooperate in Hitler's "final solution" to the "Jewish question" could be seen in their willingness to fight for the Nazi ideology itself. Many of these radicalized Christians went as far as to rat out other Christians who dared to stand up against the Nazi party (even those who just tried to be pacifist).

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

~ Adolf Hitler, Speaking at the Reichstag in 1936

This willingness on the part of the Church to help fuel Hitler's industrialized slaughter of Europe's Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and other socially undesirables can also be seen in areas like Croatia.

On the 10th of April, 1941 the Ustase proclaimed Croatia to be an independent state with the protection of Nazi Germany. These radical supporters of a fascist state, one centered around Catholicism, had almost overnight made a lasting split with the rest of Yugoslavia. Their hatred for Serbs, Bosniaks, and Jews had given them a bond with Hitler's race based state. Yet it was that hatred for Judaism that proved to be the strongest bond between the Ustase and Adolf Hitler (also a Catholic).

During the Holocaust in Croatia the Germans were relieved that they would not have to commit troops to the Ustase cause. Instead the Croatian fascist, acting upon the common religion of their supporters, were able to rally an unbelievable amount of support for their genocidal ambitions. This led to the creation of some of the largest concentration camps in all of Europe, some of the largest death tolls in all of the Holocaust, and a lasting legacy of genocide in the Balkans. Croatia's genocidal efforts would leave wounds that would later create fertile ground for the Bosnian Genocide. And all of this was done through Croat loyalty to the religious hatred found in Nazi ideology.

Ironically, and rather tellingly, Adolf Hitler would go on to depict his devotion to the wholesale slaughter of entire races as something of a "commandment of God's will". In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler made it clear that he believed God had dictated to the "Aryan" race (Germans in his mind) to kill off the Jews and create God's kingdom upon the earth. Of course this was heavily mixed with political philosophy and tainted ideology that was flaunted as "science". But it was clear from Hitler's own words that he believed his actions as leader of Germany were in line with his god's will.

"For God’s will gave men their form,
their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is
declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”

~ Adolf Hitler, in one of his more ironic quotes.

This embrace by the Church of the Nazi philosophy raises the question of whether or not Europe's church had already been on that path before Hitler or if Hitler had put it on that path when he arrived? It is clear that Hitler had gained much of his religious views from the Church in his upbringing. And it is clear that Hitler had used the teachings of the Church to formulate his genocidal ambitions. But it is up to the reader to decide if organized religion in Europe had been the source or just a pawn in the Nazis' crimes against all of humanity.

The Promised Land

 

“It would be my greatest sadness to see Zionists do to Palestinian Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews.” 

~ Albert Einstein

And this, my friends, is where we fast forward to religion's role in the genocides of our time. 

In Israel there are many reasons to claim that the brutal repression of indigenous peoples for the political advancement of a religiously based state warrants the label of genocide. It is arguable that the creation of a Palestinian controlled territory (complete with walls to divide the areas) in and of itself could directly reflect the creation of the Warsaw Ghetto. It is arguable that the race based segregation that occurs within Israel (both legally and willfully by Israeli society itself) could directly reflect the race laws imposed by the Nazis. It is arguable that the exiling of Palestinians upon the creation of Israel itself could be directly reminiscent of the deportations of Jews from their homes in Nazi occupied Europe. Yet none of these are considered viable arguments due to the insulating layers that Israel's defenders have wrapped themselves in... the blood of my ancestors and the religion of my forefathers. 

I may not be a "good Jew". Hell, I may not be a very good anything. But like Albert Einstein, it is with great sorrow that I watch bigots and supporters of genocide use my faith, my heritage, and my ancestor's plight for their defense. 

The Christians who took part in the Holocaust killed their Christ six million times over when they committed themselves to their "holy deeds". I'll be damned if I would turn my faith over to the crucifying of another soul in that same perverted manner. 

Judaism, and those who truly follow it, cannot be permit such atrocities as those committed by those who would pursue land over the service to their fellow man. After all, wasn't that what our prophets (of all three faiths) were preaching all along? Or should we follow in the footsteps of the Turks, the Nazis, and the Church by picking the verses we want and applying them the way we see fit? 

But Israel is far from the only place we can find religion being used to either justify or encourage genocide today.

Religion Of Peace?

"Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”

~Buddhist Quote

Myanmar is, and for the foreseeable future will remain, a Buddhist country. It has a long history of diversity and more races and cultures wrapped up under one flag than most it's neighbors. Yet the majority have one thing in common and that is their common faith. It is for this reason that the government has largely been composed of men and women who claim to be faithful practitioners of the Buddhist teachings. So with that being said, one is left to wonder just how Burma became one of the worst offenders of human rights in our time?

 

Religion has played a very vital role in Myanmar's development. Some of its largest monuments and national treasures focus around it's rich heritage of Buddhist beliefs. However, outside the heart of Myanmar, almost forming a ring around the country's edges, are cultures that have rich histories of Christianity, Islam, and indigenous beliefs. These cultures have often been excluded, persecuted, and even driven out of Burma by those who claim to practice the peaceful teachings of Buddha. And it is for this reason that religion so often plays a central role to the conflicts that plague Myanmar. 

The leaders of Myanmar (the old junta) have often rallied their support through force. This muscle has been made more tolerable by their willingness to mask their atrocities with the guise of protecting Burma's Buddhist heritage. When the government targets groups like the Rohingya they are often seen to be readily playing upon the image of fending off Islamic invaders. Through the use of religiously based, and heavily nationalistic, propaganda the state is able to offer some form of rationalization for it's atrocities.

As with all other genocides where religion has been used to support the murderous ambitions of the perpetrators, Burma's Buddhists hold much of the responsibility. Their faith is often used as a tool both for and against them. And in this case it is used to offer them a reason to support that which they have often feared their government could or would do to them. While there is room to claim they are doing what they are told or fearing what will happen if the don't, there is no justification for this cowardice (just as with Germany's Christians). 

When one's religion teaches them to value every life it should be clear that it also is teaching them to cherish those their government tries to depict as their enemy. The individual can not be permitted the right to hide behind their faith. The individual can not permitted to hide behind the fear of persecution for their faith. And the individual can not be permitted to tolerate the abuse of their faith. All of which is far too often offered as a defense for members of societies like that of Myanmar's. 

"The tongue like a sharp knife … Kills without drawing blood.”

~ Buddhist Quote 

In The Service Of Others

“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.”

~17th Dalai Lama 

As screamers, those who witness genocide and refuse to be silent, we also believe that when it comes to genocide it doesn't matter what your faith is. If you are to be in the service of those who have been made voiceless then you have to be willing to help all mankind. That means reaching beyond those within your own faith or a faith to which you feel some kindred spirit with. It means that you come alongside the downtrodden of this world and partner with them. It means that you make whatever sacrifice you have to to make sure that the less fortunate are, at the very least, given back their voice. 

Your words have more power than you might give them credit for. When you speak on behalf of those the world has turned it's back upon you are telling their story, their plight, and their hopes. It is a wonderful opportunity to experience the essence of what it means to be human. It is also an opportunity that should never be taken lightly. For it is you chance to put their lives ahead of your own. 

Religion, the spiritual life of man, is something that should be personal to each of us. It is a part of us that nobody else will ever experience in the way you do. It is a part of you that the world, no matter how hard it tries, should ever be allowed to take away. It's this part of you that we wish to appeal to. For we believe that faith, no matter which one you choose, teaches us to show compassion and love for those around us. So if you believe... believe that you have the power to make a change for the better in this dreary little world of ours. 

Recognize the power of your faith. 

Recognize the power of your voice. 

Scream.

Source Documents
(note: not all are listed)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

Rutgers University
http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/genocide-ottoman-greeks-1914-1923
http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/assyrian-genocide-1914-1923-and-1933-pres

The First Casualty Of War

Rabid Dogs On All Sides
(PLUCK series)

'Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.' 

~Samuel Johnson, 'The Idler' 1758

It is the common narrative of those who side with the rebels, often blindly, in Syria that these gun toting militants are somehow valiant characters in the overall plot. They have been cast as the defenders of the downtrodden and oppressed Syrian civilians. They have been painted as noble warriors who arose to take a stand against the savage tyrant in command of Syria. Yet the war which they wage has been brutal in it's depiction of reality. With every massacre there comes the picture of rabid dogs surrounding the citizenry of Syria on all sides. Assad's barbarians remain frothing at the mouth as they clamor for new atrocities. And, contrary to their online propagandists, the rebels are equally savage in their attempts to assert authority in reclaimed areas.

It is the common narrative of the blind support that what you are reading here is wrong. By looking beyond the partisanship of either side we are somehow committing an offense. By sifting through the lies, often pitting them against one another, we are somehow wrong for seeking the hard facts behind the fog of war. If you believe that, if you are so vehemently biased, then this is your chance to leave and go back to the media that feeds your glutinous appetite for lies.

We don't claim to know everything. This isn't a blog to tell you what to think, we didn't start this to make you believe. This is a blog that simply exists so as to make you ask questions. Our only goal here is to make you question everything you have been told. Our mission is to create screamers by unbinding the blindfolds that have covered peoples' eyes for far too long. We don't always have the answers, but we'll be damned if we would ever cease in trying to find them.

Devoured 

Syria's crisis began when Assad violently attempted to crush the spirit which we seek for all mankind. It was in Syria's underclass that the masses began to question the legitimacy of Assad's rule. From the ground up the threat was rising to a tyrant who had held power for generations. Syria's crisis began because the leader of Syria felt his dogs were turning in upon him. 

A system in which the majority of the citizenry do not belong to the same class or religion of the ruling party, is a system that becomes to top heavy to survive. When the masses began to realize that Syria's fighter jets, it's tanks, it's helicopters, and it's savage army were no longer meant to protect them but rather to dominate them... it was already too late.

Guerrilla warfare became the only method by which the underclass could rise up to challenge the bigger dog in this fight. Through ambushing, hit and run, and by utilizing rolling battles to engage the regime; the rebels were seen as fighting for their homes and their people. In the beginning this was symbolic in the fact that it made outsiders believe that Syria's masses were in open rebellion. And yet the people of Syria were not yet ready to sacrifice everything for the whims of this ragtag band of rebels. 

Assad, in all his barbaric glory, launched all out war upon his own nation. Cluster bombs, incendiaries, mortars, heavy artillery, tanks, helicopters, and jets were all thrown into the fight to stop the rebellion his own savagery had inspired. Entire villages were laid to waste as Assad sought to bring Syria back under his control. Nothing was sacred to the now rabid leader as he challenged all conventions of warfare by openly targeting civilians. 

This is how the war began. And in it's own right, this is how Syria was devoured from within. Blood spilled on one side was immediately rectified, if ever it could be, by more blood spilled on the opposing side. And eye for an eye rapidly made all of Syria blind. 

Yet it was the bitterness of war that devoured Syria completely. Rebels who had boasted about their restraint in battle quickly gave into the temptations of war. Retaliatory attacks on citizens who remained loyal to Assad began to mount the death toll on the other side. Men that online supporters claimed were somehow noble turned out to be no less barbaric than the savage they claimed to fight. Leaving many to wonder how the rebels could be praised for fighting Assad when they have mirrored their enemies own sins.

Genocide Produces Yet More Genocides

(A History) 

Namibia, the land of the 20th century's first genocide. It is a country in which the German Second Reich began it's experiments with lebensraum and eugenic philosophies. This is the place where a modern nation imposed race laws, built concentration camps, used chemicals to kill their victims, used slave labor to cause death, and committed outright mass executions of the Herero and Namaqua peoples. All of which occurred a decade prior to the Armenian Genocide. 

Turkish leaders would look back upon their German ally's success in Namibia and learn from the Second Reich what it meant to exterminate an entire ethnicity of man. In Ottoman eyes the colonization of Namibia by Germany was seen as a success because the German people never once said a word against it. Instead the German populace was seen as supportive and as willing participants in their government's atrocities. Thus, without little questioning by Turkish citizens, the Ottomans began their genocides in an attempt to maintain their crumbling empire. 

The Assyrians, the Pontic Greeks, and the Armenians would all suffer the wrath of a failing empire. 1.5 million Armenians would perish as Turkey fought to enforce "Turkification" across their territories. There was no limit to the barbarism that the Ottomans would utilize in their attempts to either deport or kill their victims. 

“Who today still talks about the annihilation of the Armenians?”

~ Adolf Hitler, August 22, 1939

Deir-es-Zor, the Turkish death camp to which Armenians were sent, is to the Armenian people today what Auschwitz is to the Jews. The extermination of the Armenian people was so vast and rapidly committed that Hitler himself referenced it while preparing the Holocaust. It was only 24 years after the Armenian Genocide that the next dictator was preparing to unleash the hell of genocide upon Europe once again. And just as with the Turks, the Nazis were simply expanding upon what their predecessors had done before them. 

Six million Jews would pay with their lives for what Hitler had unleashed upon Europe. My ancestors were taken into the mountains and shot by Hitler's dogs in Croatia. Like the Armenians who were marched away from their homes to die, my ancestors looked back upon their village and knew that they would never return home again. From their blood, from those who clung to life in our darkest hour, I'm here today. 

The suffering of my people was the playbook from which dictators like Idi Amin and Pol Pot took their instructions. Acting in the same savage spirit that had inspired hellish acts like that of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, these modern heathens unleashed genocides across the world. In Cambodia about a quarter of the population would perish as Pol Pot recreated the crimes committed by the Germans in Namibia. Idi Amin, who admitted to adoring Hitler, attempted to recreate the Holocaust as he plunged Uganda into a hell from which it has yet to recover from. 

Genocide has been looked upon by governments as the perfect crime because it is supposed to destroy the "problem" at it's root. Yet there are always those who survive. There are always those who watch the crimes and record them in their hearts and souls. These survivors and onlookers are the ones who refuse to let the sins of the past die in the killing fields. And thus, genocide for all it's absolutes, is never a crime that is easily forgotten. 

It is a crime that breeds more of it's own horrific acts in every generation to follow. In cases like that of Rwanda there is the immediate threat of the victimized community retaliating, and thus perpetrating genocide, once the killing stops. The bitterness that remains once the killings end is the seed that genocide sows wherever and whenever genocide occurs. If it does not obtain fruition in one culture it will seek out another in which to grow. It knows and respects no borders society has attempted to create. Every society is vulnerable to it's lures. 

And this is where we are today in Syria.

The brink of allowing one genocide to breed another. 

A War With No Victors

Assad watched other dictators across the Middle East get away with the very sins he has committed. It was only in recent history that Assad has seen tyrants fall to the hangman's knot. And therefore it may be this reality of repercussions for his actions that keeps the dictator clinging to power. He has nowhere left to run. His followers have nowhere left to cast their support. The battle lines are so deeply drawn that there is no crossing over. There will be no forgiveness, there will be no repentance, this is a fight to the death.

It is in the rigidness of Syria's war that the end has already been made clear. An end that will find both sides defeated in their own ways. Syria has no prize for the conquerors. It has nothing left to offer the side that claims victory. For this is a war that will have no victor. 

Far too much blood has been spilled by the true owners of Syria, it's citizenry. Too many young lives have been altered so drastically that there is no walking their hearts and minds back to civility. Young Syrians will now watch as others return home to families that they no longer have themselves. They will be left with the bitterness that comes with seeing a world move on as they remain in hell. Far too much has been taken from the true owners of Syria's hope... it's youth has been bled out. 

The rebels may be the lesser of two evils in this fight. But they are not the heroes. That is a title that they will never be able to claim. For there have been far too many innocent lives lost as their militants pulled triggers and planted bombs that should have never been. Their excesses have stripped them of any praise that civilized man could have ever offered. It is in their sins that they have been found unworthy of any support.

This brings us to the final point of this long winded method of asking...

If the rebels in Syria do manage to win their war and commit even more retaliatory reprisals against the Alawite minority, will their supporters call these acts genocide?

Just as not all Sunni Muslims have offered their support to the rebels (thus marking themselves for reprisals too), not all Alawites have offered their support to Assad's regime. Yet the genocide that has seen Assad targeting Sunni civilians has bred deep animosity against the Alawites as a whole. And it has already been made clear that the rebels exercise little restraint when claiming Alawite areas. They have often been recorded as targeting Alawite civilians trapped by the sudden shift in power. 

In areas where the population is considered traditionally loyal to Assad, the rebels have done little to stop elements of their forces from savagely attacking the unarmed populace. This occurs in all wars as attacking soldiers take casualties and find themselves unable to directly attack the enemy soldiers. It has always been the civilians who suffer the hatred that feeds the will to fight on both sides. Yet when it comes to the rebels these crimes are rarely admitted by their fiercely loyal followers and supporters online. 

Thus we ask once again... If the rebels do win, and they begin targeting supposed supporters of the old regime, will there be the same "humanitarian" outcry by supporters? 

The ground has already been prepared for the next genocide in Syria. Rebels, engulfed by bitterness and hatred, stand ready to commit massacres of their own in the absence of an enemy regime. Civilians who have been told that their neighbors supported the man who killed their families stand prepared to accept that these traitors deserve to die. All the elements are there. The ground has been salted in such a way that nothing but more genocidal acts can grow here. 

So when the rebels, who many of you reading this have so adamantly supported, do openly commit crimes against humanity... will you scream?

“…the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey is to condone it… the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense…”

~ Theodore Roosevelt, 1918 

In 1918 Theodore Roosevelt pointed out to the world what they all seemed to be missing as the fog of war began to clear. For all the deaths that had occurred there were still those that the world was ignoring. For all the governments that the world was punishing after the war, there was still one that remained free of society's outrage for it's crimes against humanity. 

In Syria there are still deaths that remain unanswered for. There are still factions within this war that remain free from the outrage of civilized society for their crimes against all of humanity. This is not a war where there is anyone left untainted by the blood that has been spilled. Each and every war criminal deserves to be dragged out and punished upon the world stage. And the fact that anyone who claims to be a "humanitarian" would turn a blind eye to one side while being so partisan as to attack the other... that is why genocide and crimes against humanity go unpunished today. The apathy of good men.

Bullets For Words

(PLUCK series)

Kike 

Nigger

Chink

Fag

Goy

Beaner

Hebe

Christ Killer

Coon

Cracker

Sand Nigger

Guido 

Paki

Gypsy 

Haji

Raghead

Spic

Wetback 

Yid

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. 

Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” 

~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

All of these words have a certain way of hitting home for at least one or more members here at Alder's Ledge. They are cheap shots that we deal with daily. While out in public, while online, and even at home from time to time; these words have a way of falling upon the eardrums like a grenade. They sting like fire upon the soul as they prick at the flesh and drive up the will to fight. For each of us here at Alder's Ledge they are of course just words... but when we hear them they are like bullets.

Over the years of running this blog and maintaining a team of dedicated screamers we have endured every slur we could imagine and then some. At times we have had to look up a slur just to figure out what exactly we had been called. Yet for all the abuse we get we still remain dedicated. Our fight, our passion, our fire continue to grow as we work toward exposing genocides both past and present. 

As we have taken to one social media outlet after the other there is one thing we cannot ignore, no matter how hard we try. And that is the aspect of friendly fire as activists all around us take to the fight ever so viciously. While we applaud the effort, there is something to be said for turning our words... our bullets... upon our own.

Cannibalistic Peace

Outlets like Twitter are often nothing more than battlefields. Machine guns replace fingertips as bursts are set forth in 140 character bursts. And once those gun bursts are shot off for all to see, where there is no chance of taking them back, the person who fired first has no way to retreat. Whatever they felt was so important to merit their attack, either intentional or incidental, is permanently flying out there in cyber space. 

When it comes to activism on Twitter the machine gun is fed constantly with a chain of bullets offered up by the masses. This has the power to be used as a tool in fighting for justice. And yet it, like any weapon, has the capability to be turned on it's own. It is this aspect of firing off careless words in support of good causes that turns what could had been a good effort into friendly fire. 

For the main author of this blog that is highlighted mainly with the persistent mingling of the phrase "Zionism" with Judaism. This flirtation with blaming a collective over highlighting the individual makes sniping a religion more prevalent than attacking those who abuse it for their own advancement. It denies the diversity within Judaism, and yes... even the diversity amongst Israelis, so as to lump the target into a faceless mass where it can be culled. 

When you look at the use of one's words in this aspect the characteristics of war can be applied to every engagement. Whether we are truly trying to bunch up those we view as opponents or rather over simplifying the matter at hand doesn't make much of a difference once the first shots are fired. Once blood is drawn there isn't an opportunity to turn back.

For our Buddhists who work on this blog there is then the Rohingya issue that boils up hate speech targeting them. Most of our team members here who happen to be Buddhists are from Thailand and China. So the collective terms applied to them are not only applied through religion but geography as well. This helps every shot to sting just that much more as they delete our daily barrage of comments (note almost all comments are deleted anymore due to hate speech). 

"Buddhists in Burma have killed over 30,000 & raped women in front of their brothers for being Muslim, Those are the real terrorists."

 "Buddhists burn Muslims alive in Burma, yet we are the terrorists, right?"

"*All-h will punish Buddhists."

 

These are just portions of comments that often are seen in tweets as well. They are obviously hate filled rhetoric to us here at Alder's Ledge. Though some are founded out of a growing siege mentality amongst a small portion of Muslims we talk to, the hate behind them is unmistakable. And it is the hate within these excerpts that draws the battle lines and makes peace impossible. 

Our Buddhists team members are dedicated to combating the genocidal acts currently being perpetrated against the Rohingya and Kamen Muslims of Arakan, Burma. Many of our Buddhists team mates have worked with refugee agencies in their homeland and even within Myanmar. They practice their faith through their service to others, and this includes all religions and any ethnicity.

With that said the endless bombardment of their faith due to the hateful actions of a small minority within their faith. They have often expressed the feeling that their faith is singled out daily due to these individuals who wish to exploit Buddhism for nationalism rather than faith. For me personally, the irony of this feeling is something that can't be ignored. 

Buddhism and Islam both are supposed to be religions of peace and tolerance. When Muslims shoot off their opinion filled hate slogans against Buddhists it creates the same reaction these same Muslims have when being called terrorists. The sense of being attacked for their faith only rallies their will to resist and resist with unmistakable force. 

Yet retaliation should never be seen as justification by any means. 

Just because a certain individual decides to fire back doesn't mean that you were right all along. It means that much like you, the other person is simply human as well. When fired upon while trying to help the first reaction isn't to keep offering support but to rather withdraw and then counter attack. No human being is designed to run up a white flag when all they see around them are enemies. It just isn't natural. 

This creates a situation where those who are supposedly seeking peace are being subjected to friendly fire. The people that once welcomed them are now the ones sniping them from every direction. And just as it created a siege mentality in one community it creates much the same in the other. 

As the white flag comes down the flames go higher. And it is in this sort of fighting that we degenerate from peace on into cannibalism.

Irreversible Harm

Our team is comprised of thick skinned individuals. We take every abuse that comes with doing this job. And for the most part, we don't complain. Yet over the past week we have experienced the irreversible harm this friendly fire can create. 

Words are exactly like bullets in the sense that at times they do have the power to kill. 

A few weeks ago we posted an article called "Opting Out". The subject was important to a dear brother and friend who recently lost his battle with his demons. This struggle was one that many of us here at Alder's Ledge deal with or have dealt with over our years. It is a painful fight, a relentless siege of the mind, that those who fight it try desperately to hide. For that reason we decided to scream for those who are overcome by it. 

None of us were ready for him to leave us. But we don't get to go back and say goodbye. All we have now is the job to carry-on. Forever fighting, struggling, and screaming... just as he would be if he were here today. 

After writing that post with me our dear friend watched as hate mail began to pour in almost immediately. Most of what we see after post like that one aren't mere bullets but more like mortar shells. They have a way of eating away at our image of what humanity aught to be. They throw up dirt and smoke all around us as the hate clouds any sense of hope in our fellow man. 

Due to this the comment section is closed. 

We may never know why our friend left us. We may never know what those last moments were like, what was going through his head, or why we couldn't help. But I do know that the words he read, those he heard daily, and those we see constantly as a team all had their affect on how this ended. 

Before Pulling The Trigger

We all have a responsibility when it comes to speech in any form. The words we let loose are forever present in the minds and hearts of those who hear them. They have the power to heal or the power to kill. While a gentle word is like honey upon the lips of those who preach love and peace, those same words can be made harsh and become poison dripping from those same lips. 

In activism we have a responsibility not only to our own self but our cause. By firing off words tainted with hate we not only hurt those around us but damage the very cause we are trying to help prosper. With every word we speak out of anger, frustration, or hopelessness we create hostility in those we are supposed to be trying to reach. 

Before we speak, tweet, or update a status there should be a moment of questioning. We should think about how this will help or hurt our cause. We should think about how those who read or hear our voice will interpret what we are saying. After all, it isn't how we want to say something that really matters but rather how our audience will hear it and just how it will set upon their minds and hearts. 

We aught engage our audience with words that tug at their heart strings and not ones that burn like hot lead. This is how we win the battle for hearts and minds... with love, not hate.

*Note that the author of this blog post does not spell out the name of G-d due to religious observance.