Shaphan

An Iraqi 9/11

On Sunday, Coalition forces in Iraq killed about 250-450 'cult members', at the behest of the Iraqi government.  We, the British, contributed to the massacre, which, in relative-population terms, was equivalent to an Iraqi 9/11.

American Apache attack helicopters and F-16s, as well as British fighter jets, flew low over the farms where the enemy had set up its encampments and attacked, dropping 500-pound bombs on the encampments. [NYT]

Women and children are believed to have lived and died at the encampment.  Reports yesterday suggested the leader, who was believed to be a herald of the Imam Mahdi, had been killed along with this followers - but the NYT is not so sure.

Iraqi officials said Monday that they had killed the leader of the militia in the weekend fighting, identifying him as a man who went by the name Ahmed Hassan al-Yamani, but whose real name was Diyah Abdul Zahraa Khadom.  However, a Shiite cleric who has had contact with the group said the real leader was Ahmad bin al-Hassan al-Basri.  The cleric said he believed that Mr. Basri was alive and probably hiding near Karbala.

I would have thought that, when faced with an apocalyptic cult, the last strategy to try would be to wreak apocalyptic violence upon its followers - it sort of reinforces the beliefs of the survivors.  In addition, targeting religious groups, such as the Soldiers of Heaven, is considered genocide under international law.   I'm lost for words.

(We should be) Congratulating North Korea

It's sometimes remarked that North Korea resembles a cult.  There's the charismatic leader, the strict hierarchy, the high degree of control, and so on.  If there's something to that, then the UN Security Council's response to the North Korean nuclear test is likely to make things worse, not better.

The solution to the North Korea problem lies ultimately with the North Koreans.  Currently, though, they are choosing to follow their Dear Leader.  Members of cults are more likely to leave their cult if they are exposed to alternative belief-systems and sources of information.   The North Korean people are more likely to overthrow their cultic system if the walls between themselves and the outside world are gradually dismantled.

Although it may seem counterintuitive or even crazy, the way to respond to North Korea's achievement of going nuclear would have been to play along with it.  The Security Council could have simultaneously congratulated Kim Jong Il on the DPRK's success, as well as expressing its disapproval.  The Dear Leader could have been invited on state visits to Seoul, Beijing and Moscow.  Economic aid should have been offered, scientific exchanges organized, and trade delegations sent.  Dismantle the walls and let the people free themselves.  Crazy situations sometimes call for seemingly crazy responses, as RD Laing once demonstrated.

Instead, the 'international community' has responded by building the walls higher by applying new sanctions.  Even though the sanctions are not directly targeted at the North Korean people, their effect will be to add to the populace's starvation of contact with the outside world.  If North Korea is like a cult, the UNSC's response to the DPRK going nuclear is itself crazy and will only make things worse.  'Deviance amplification', as some sociologists might call it.

A Korea diplomat?

Apparently, UN staff are underwhelmed at the choice of Ban Ki Moon as the next secretary-general. 

"The mood among staff is glum," one of the officials said.  "We are not very excited about the outcome."  With morale low at the UN after five years dominated by divisions, deadlock and corruption, they are sceptical about Mr Ban's ability to turn the organisation round or provide the strong, inspirational leadership they had been hoping for.

A Korean foreign ministry spokesman responded:

"In the Oriental culture, leadership is assessed in a different way.  One can look very affable, very gentle, but inside his mind he has a strong conviction ...  Appearance is one thing, his firm beliefs and readiness to make tough decisions is another."

So far, Mr Ban's strong convictions and firm beliefs remain obscured.  He's a career diplomat, so his practice has been to be self-effacing.  I've got four areas of concern about him: his relationship with America; the North Korean problem; his religious beliefs; and how Sun Myung Moon will respond.

1.  America.  The Americans support his candidacy.  Mr Ban chose his career path when,

As a high school student in 1962, Ban won an English speaking contest, winning a trip to Washington to meet then President John F. Kennedy.  He says it was at that time he decided to become a diplomat.

In the '70s and '80s he spent much time in the US, serving at the South Korean embassy and at the UN.  Meanwhile, he studied for and achieved a master's at the JF Kennedy School of Government, Harvard.  Watching a Sky TV video interview with him [here], I was struck by how influenced he seemed by American political mores.  So, how will his instinctive pro-Americanism play in keeping world peace?

2.  North Korea.  It may be that Ban Ki Moon's elevation will greatly help deal with the North Korean problem - if so, great.  But it may also further destabilize the peninsula.  How will the North Koreans react?

3.  Ban's religion.   I wrote about this below.  Korean Christianity is a weird and wonderful thing.  Mr Ban is a 'non-denominational Christian', according to the ROK foreign ministry.  What does that mean?  What theology does he adhere to?  How does he view, say, Islam, or Baha'ism, or Unificationism?  Are they as equally valid as his own faith?  Does he believe in the imminence of the endtimes?  Etc.

4.  The Unification Church.  This is my main concern.  Wayne Madsen has been mentioning this for several days, although his conclusions are questionable.  I agree with John Gorenfeld, who left a comment on my last entry, that Mr Ban is surely not a Unificationist.  But the links between the ROK government and the UC are murky but there.  Madsen writes today that he's received many emails from Moonies, denying the substance of Madsen's posts but nevertheless all being supportive of Mr Ban's candidacy.  That would fit with my hunch that Sun Myung Moon probably welcomes this development.  But will he expect favours from Mr Ban?  What if Mr Ban doesn't react as Mr Moon wants?  Such a conflict mightn't be good for the UN.

Two Moons at the UN

I've been wondering what the Moonies thought of a South Korean becoming UN secretary-general, if Ban Ki-Moon gets the job as expected.  Sun Myung Moon has been trying to take over the UN for a decade or more.  Arch-conspiratologist Wayne Madsen reckons, without any firm evidence, that Ban Ki Moon is a Unification Church ally [his emphases]. 

Sun Mying Moon [sic], who was excommunicated by the Korean Presbyterian church for preaching heresy, claims he is the Messiah and intends to take control of the world.  The South Korean government, which has close ties with Sun Myung Moon's organization, has used its considerable public relations machinery to convince the Security Council members to elect Ban Ki-moon as the next Secretary General.  Only a veto by one of the four other permanent members -- France, United Kingdom, Russia, or China -- can derail the possibility of a Unification Church ally from becoming the next UN Secretary General.

BKM's biography states that he's a 'non-denominational Christian'.  Madsen writes,

Some informed UN sources are concerned that Moon lists his religious affiliation as "non-denominational Christian," a code word often used by the "Moonies" for the Unification Church.

I don't know whether that's true or not (if anyone knows, please leave a comment).  There are many Korean churches that would describe themselves as 'non-denominational', and it's far more likely that BKM belongs to one of those.  How his religious beliefs might influence his work seems to me to be a pertinent question, though, and I hope journalists ask him about it.  Is he expecting Christ to return soon, for example?  What does he think of Sun Myung Moon?  And what does Sun Myung Moon think of the possibility of having a Korean in the top job?  Would he see it as a sign that the day is coming when the world will recognize his Messiahship?  Would he expect favours from Ban Ki Moon?  Would a Unificationist, or an evangelical Christian, be the right person to helm the UN at a time of religious strife?  If it was Asia's turn to source the next secretary-general, couldn't a Muslim from Malaysia or Indonesia have been found instead?

Mormon Mission

Last Friday, I emailed the Guardian's readers' editor about a correction they'd run about Mormonism (here).  I received no reply.  Today's Guardian had enough mistakes in it to allow me to email again and, at the same time, to chase up the Mormon question.  This is what I wrote:

Dear Readers' Editor

1.  In today's paper, page 4, report by Patrick Wintour, first line.  Practitioners of astrology are astrologers, not astrologists.  On a related matter, and contrary to the belief of George Monbiot and some of your sub-editors, practitioners of theology are theologians, not theologists.

2.  Today, page 6, under heading, Brown cabinet, by MacAskill and Wintour. It reads:

"The list below is an educated guess based on who Mr Brown rates, who he will need to promote, who he will want to show support for, who will retire and who might be fired."

Each 'who' should be a 'whom'.  The word 'educated' is surely ironic. [*]

3.  I wrote last week complaining about misinformation printed in your column about Mormonism.  I've yet to receive a reply, and no correction has yet been published.  I hope the delay is due to you checking your facts with non-aligned experts in Mormonism, because, if so, we can look forward to you retracting your misinformed and misleading correction soon.

Yours
[*]  Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, I know that only the first three should have been 'whom'.  I was careless.

Amazingly, I got a reply back.

thanks for your email. Sorry if you didn't get a reply to you email re the Mormon correction. I have no intention of withdrawing or amending that. Best wishes

He gave no explanation for his decision so I sent the following email (below) this evening, which I think is reasonably strong.  I wonder how he will respond, if, indeed, he does, or whether he will pass it on to his assistant, and she will write to say it's a matter of interpretation and so my complaint is rejected.  Sigh.

Weird Weald

It's been commented on before, but there's a whole lot of fringe religion going on in northern Sussex.  Two towns, East Grinstead and Crowborough, which are about 10 miles apart (as the, er, crow flies), seem to be particularly struck.  The case of East Grinstead is already quite well known.  As Wikipedia has it,

A number of important religious sites are located in East Grinstead.

L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, lived at Saint Hill, to the south of the town, and the manor is the British headquarters of the Church of Scientology.

To the north of the town is the Mormon London England Temple.

Opus Dei and the Rosicrucians both own property in the town.

The strange co-incidence of such a number of religious organisations being headquartered in the town prompted a documentary in 1994, Why East Grinstead?, which was produced for Channel 4 by Zed Productions and directed by Ian Sellar.  The documentary didn't come to any definite conclusions: the explanations ranging from the fact that East Grinstead sat on the convergence of ley lines to the more prosaic idea that the various reglious inquirers had settled there because they liked the views.

Between East Grinstead and Crowborough lies Forest Row, where Scientology's school for members' children, Greenfields School, is situated.

Crowborough was in the international news-spotlight this week as the location of the Jameah Islameah School, which was raided by anti-terror police.  Also in the town, according to Wiki, is the English Grand Lodge for Europe and Africa of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, which I guess means it's the group's UK HQ. 

And Crowborough also houses 350+ Scientology staff members, who presumably work at Saint Hill Manor.  They live at Walsh (or Walshes) Manor, Walshes Road.  In November '05, the Crowborough Scientologists got into a row with members of the Crowborough town council, and the kerfuffle turned violent six months later. 

Note to self - avoid these towns at all costs.

p.s.  This from May 2006.

Saint Hill Manor, the headquarters of Scientology, was compared to one of Saddam Hussein's palaces at a Crowborough Town Council committee meeting this week.

Cllr Michael Murphy demanded the council should seek further information into the church of Scientology before it uses its voluntary services.

Cllr Murphy, who reiterated that he does not discriminate against anyone, referred to newspaper allegations of improper conduct by Scientologists particularly at Walsh Manor, Crowborough, where some 350 scientologists live.

He claimed workers at the manor always looked "pained and exhausted" and how one remarked "I would have loved it if the police moved in and let us all go".

Cllr Murphy said: "It's not an organisation full of ordinary people. It's an authoritarian organisation that restricts people and their freedom - particularly the vulnerable. They charge a lot of money for the services they provide."

He said: "I think it would be right for the council to at least stand back and give some thought to some of the information from these resources."

He asked the council to call for a police investigation to find out what is going on at Walsh Manor before adding: "We can all go down to Saint Hill and be entertained. But we could have come into one of Saddam Hussein's palaces and everything would have seemed fine when he was murdering and massacring his people." (..)

Morman Wisdom

The Guardian ran a correction today that could have been written by the PR department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  In fact, some of it was.

A headline, Fugitive Mormon leader's reign of fear ended by traffic violation, page 3, August 30, was inaccurate and has already been changed in the online version of the story to Fugitive sect leader's reign of fear etc.  The man at the centre of the story, Warren Jeffs, is not a Mormon, the commonly used name for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and never has been.  The Mormon church discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890 and insists that there is no such thing as a "Morman fundamentalist" or "Mormon sect".

I wrote to the Guardian to complain.

Dear Corrections people

I'm writing to complain about your first correction today, on Mormonism.  No, it's not about the spelling mistake ('Morman').  It's that it's wrong on most substantive counts.  The original headline was not inaccurate.  The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is but the largest of dozens of Mormon sects in the US.  Some, including those described as Mormon fundamentalists, would argue that the CJCLDS stopped being truly Mormon, stopped following Joseph Smith's teachings, when it bowed to the secular states' laws against polygamy.  Warren Jeffs' Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is a Mormon sect, arguably more so than the CJCLDS itself.  A well-researched article in the Phoenix New Times ends with this para.

The [LDS and the FLDS] are deeply intertwined.  Their beliefs are based on the same scripture.  They have the same founders.  The key difference is that the FLDS practices what the LDS preaches.

The CJCLDS, which is rich and powerful, wants to claim the term Mormonism, and the initials LDS, for its own and to distant itself from its many sectarian off-shoots.  But just because the CJCLDS insists that "there is no such thing as a 'Mormon fundamentalist,' nor are there 'Mormon sects'", as it did in a May 10 press release, and which you repeated verbatim today, does not make it true.

It is true that, because the CJCLDS is by far the largest Mormon sect, the original headline was potentially misleading.  'Fugitive Mormon sect leader' might have been clearer.  But it was not "inaccurate" at all.

Did the CJCLDS contact you about this?  Did you publish this correction in order to avoid possible legal action?  Is there any chance that your column could take a neutral stand on the various Mormon sects, instead of acting as a mouthpiece for the propaganda of the most powerful one, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Yours

Given my previous failure with the Corrections dept., I don't know why I'm doing this.

Sumner Redstone as a PTS?

According to a 26/8 post on the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology:

From Wikipedia (not a source for defensible references!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Redstone_Jr.

"The youngest of billionaire Sumner Redstone's three children, Sumner Jr. was adopted in 1971 by the Redstones when his adopted father was a relatively late age of 47 years old, so there is a significant difference in age between him and his adopted siblings Brent and Shari. He was brought up in the Jewish religion although he has been rumored to have completed courses run by the Church of Scientology, encouraged by his friend John Travolta." [ARS]

Today, the 28th, the Wikipedia article on Redstone's son has gone.  His father's bio is still there.  It may well be that Sumner Jr.'s wiki-entry had only been added after Redstone Sr. had 'sacked' Tom Cruise from his Paramount contract.  Perhaps idle rumours of the son's involvement in Scientology are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.  Nevertheless, if they were true, it would help explain why Redstone has a particular problem with Scientology.  And one suspects that, especially now, Scientology would see Sumner Sr. as a potential trouble source (PTS), and that the son and father would therefore have virtually no contact with each other anymore.

Update:  Sumner Redstone Jr.'s wikipage survives, for now, in Google's cache, here.

Miami vice

I hadn't been paying much attention to the Miami arrests of seven young men accused of planning a 9/11-type incident, until seeing this post at veiled4allah.  The arrested were not Sunni Muslims.  Nevertheless, a federal agent-provocateur was able, after six months of trying, to get them to swear alllegiance to al-Qaeda.  He also got them to fantasize about committing a terrorist attack on US hotspots.  But they're Moors, from the Moorish Science Temple of America [wikipedia].  The MSTA was the forerunner of the Nation of Islam (and also of the extremely dyfunctional Nuwaubian cult of Dwight York [wiki]).  It's a synthetic, syncretic, eclectic religion, whose followers, without the FBI's interference, would be unlikely candidates to join al-Qaeda's jihad.   So, when they, or one of them, were quoted by Alberto Gonzales as wanting to "kill all the devils we can", that's the language of Black Muslims when referring to whites, not of an Islamic jihadist talking about infidels.  And the FBI and DOJ would have known that.

So why all the publicity about them?  I can think of two possibilities:  the US government wanted to make a big deal about 'homegrown terrorists', to justify its continuing post-9/11 power grab, so decided to grow seven of its own;  or the story was released in order to distract attention from some other bit of news it didn't want the media to cover.  If it was the latter, I wonder what it was.  (The Suskind book?) (The snooping on bank transactions?) (Both?)

Moonies lose Heath, gain Spurs

Ted Heath's funeral was held on Monday. The Bishop of Salisbury, in his eulogy, said of him:

Ted built bridges between countries and nations, between artists and ordinary people, between east and west, between young and old. No one can doubt his lifelong commitment to Europe, nor for that matter to the unity of the world. In this he exerted his fullest force.

I wondered if the Bishop knew that Heath's commitment "to the unity of the world", which "ran like a golden thread through his life", had found expression, in his post-Downing Street years, in a mutually beneficial relationship with the Unification Church. Like some other former government leaders who sought to capitalize on their renown, such as George HW Bush, Kenneth Kaunda, Albert Reynolds, Michel Rocard, Brian Mulroney, et al., Ted Heath regularly attended and spoke at conferences run by various front groups of Rev Sun Myung Moon's mission to unite the world around him. George and Barbara Bush are believed to have earned over $10million from the Moonies. Heath probably received several million pounds from the Unification Church over the years, which enabled him to live prosperously in Salisbury, in the manner a former prime minister deserved.

But just as the Moonies have lost one UK figure willing to profit from promoting Rev Moon as the Messiah, Tottenham Hotspur have stepped into the breach. They've just returned from South Korea, having won the second Peace Cup, which is a front for the Unification Church. Dunno how much they received to participate, but they won the competition with its prize of £2million. The Peace Cup was born of three other Moon organisations - Play Soccer, Make Peace!; the Sun Moon Soccer Foundation; and WANGO, the World Association of NGOs. Spurs have replaced Ted Heath as the UK's biggest recipients of Rev Moon's largesse. Putains!