Among the Intellectualoids
Guru Malpractice
Deepak Chopra and son aren’t big fans of Bush’s War on Terror victories.
Ten Muslim terrorists from Pakistan apparently with military training go on a killing spree at several sites in Mumbai, India. They kill nearly 200 people, and wound hundreds more. Many are foreign business visitors or tourists from the West, whom the terrorists targeted in particular. Now come reports that autopsies of those killed at one targeted terror site, the Chabad Jewish Center, indicate that the victims were tortured.
Within hours, liberal media outlets were offering analysis revealing who was responsible for this murder and mayhem: America. Call it chapter 957,275 in the ongoing exposé, Blame America First.
The guru of this analytical perspective was Deepak Chopra, featured on CNN, and in particular on the Larry King show. Living exclusively in the real world, I had not heard of Chopra before this incident. But I soon found that Chopra is a medical doctor from India who emigrated to the U.S. in 1970. He eventually came to realize that more fun, and much more lucrative, than a large medical practice was writing books and pontificating on varieties of New Age nonsense, feel good oversimplifications of advanced medical and scientific theories, and fairy tales regarding Jesus, Christianity, and Eastern mysticism. Through these professional innovations, he has become quite a shaman in the large American market of overgrown flower children and airheads.
Chopra is a leading advocate of Transcendental Meditation, and self-awareness, meditation, and the mind-body connection in healing serious illnesses. In one book, he argued that quantum physics explains the foundation of the mind-body healing process. For that pseudo-scientific claptrap, real scientists granted him the tongue in cheek Ig Noble Prize in physics. More recently, he has become an advocate for disarmament and world peace, serving as President of the Alliance of a New Humanity. He has also recently taken to rewriting Christianity in books about Jesus, claiming in one recent interview that Jesus was not a Christian, not the son of God, and not resurrected from the dead, propositions for which Chopra has exactly zero insights, not to mention evidence.
Yet, this was the expert liberal media outlets offered to America to further pontificate on the developing tragedies in Mumbai. In one interview he said:
In another interview, Chopra explained America’s policies regarding terrorism, saying:
He then went on to explain that America’s service men and women are no different from the Mumbai terrorists, saying:
Not to worry, though. Chopra has a “global” solution. That is to address the grievances of the worldwide Muslim population — humiliation, poverty, lack of education — through a new Marshall Plan for Muslims, financed, of course, by American taxpayers.
Dorothy Rabinowitz rightly ridiculed this simple-minded foolishness in a brilliant commentary in the Wall Street Journal (“Deepak Blames America,” 12/1/2008), introducing Chopra as a “healer, New Age philosopher and digestion guru, advocate of aromatherapy and regular enemas,” based on the wide-ranging pronouncements found in his various books. She added:
This elicited outraged letters to the editor from both Deepak and his son, Gotham, whom the father is bringing into the family business, making it sort of a guru version of the Flying Wallendas. The father mostly just whined that Rabinowitz’s commentary was “a personal attack on me,” and stubbornly concluded that “I stand by my remarks and have full confidence that the Obama Administration will adopt a ‘root cause’ approach of the kind I endorsed.”
THE LETTER FROM his son then revealed the real story. Gotham wrote, “As many already know, my father, Deepak Chopra, has taken a vow of nonviolence in all his actions and words. As a result, he’s unable to respond aggressively to Ms. Rabinowitz’s criticism of his response on CNN and elsewhere to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.” After this introduction of the innovative concept of violent prose (how many have already been killed at the hands of bloody literature), Gotham writes ominously, “I haven’t taken that vow.”
Gotham then goes on to explain the “distinct link between the rise of Islamic militancy in the Indian subcontinent and U.S. activities there the past few decades.” He writes:
These words are so ridiculous they amount to guru malpractice. But they are not original with the Chopras. The mythology that Muslim terrorism is rooted in American support for the rebels fighting against the 1980s Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has been ringing through the fever swamps of the left since 9/11.
The record badly needs to be set straight on this point. Reagan’s brilliant and courageous support of the Afghan rebels with arms and financing was central in bleeding the Soviet Empire dry, leading to the humiliating defeat and withdrawal of the Soviet army from that country. This, in turn, was central to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan’s policy consequently provided enormous, incalculable benefits not only to the Afghan people, but also to all of the enslaved peoples of the old Soviet empire, and to the American people, finally freed from the burdens and threats of the Cold War.
None of this has any relation whatsoever to Islamic terrorism today. Are we to believe that Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Pakistani murderers in Mumbai would not have been able to get any guns or weapons if Reagan had not armed the Afghan rebels in the 1980s? Is a single gun from that rebel resistance still even in use today? Certainly none of those weapons were in evidence on 9/11. Those attackers, indeed, were Saudis and Egyptians, without any relation to the Afghan rebels of the 1980s.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/17/guru-malpractice
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- The End of the Castros?
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
WendyG| 12.17.08 @ 9:14AM
>>> "As many already know, my father, Deepak Chopra, has taken a vow of nonviolence in all his actions and words. As a result, he's unable to respond aggressively to Ms. Rabinowitz's criticism of his response on CNN and elsewhere to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai."
LOL. What a load. In fact the kooky father wrote a lengthy defense of himself at Huff Post (of course!)
Chopra is just another leftist fool who came to America - reaped all the largesse America can offer - but now slimes America.
Ungrateful creep.
D. O'Brien| 12.17.08 @ 10:09AM
Chopra is perfect fit for Larry King freak show, but what motivates Sean Hannity to invite him? Shame on anyone giving air time to this fake to sell his books. I heard him on "Morning Joe" telling us that Jesus was just another teacher. Not a peep out of Scarborough. Now we also learn that America is to blame for all terrorism (theirs and ours). Is this man a citizen. Can't we deport him.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 10:55AM
If 'President Bush kept us safe since 911', then I guess Bill Clinton kept us safe between the WTC bombing of 1993 and 20 January, 2001. Or, is it more likely, given our open borders and the fact that muslims resident in the USA have traveled as far as Somalia to conduct terror attacks - that the terrorists, themselves, have not decided to conduct another attack upon our soil? Yet.
Given that virtually everything else President Bush has touched has turned to ashes, I believe that we should reserve judgement on his conduct of the war on terror. From my vantage point, deep in the heartland, it would appear to me that President Bush is as inept a commander-in-chief as he has been in every other endeavor.
Michael C. Murray| 12.17.08 @ 11:47AM
We had more attacks on US interests than just the WTC in 93 under Clintons watch. The embassy bombings, the USS Cole to name 2. Clinton did nothing and that caused the escalation in attacks. Bush replied with force, that caused caution in our enemies. Though they may attack under an Obama administration to see what he will do, they full well know what Bush will do and so have decided the best course of action is to wait until the election and then attack perhaps.
Dustoff| 12.17.08 @ 12:11PM
I guess Havoc has been living in a cave for many years.
I should respond to him, but why. People like him can't see the truth if hit him in the face.
But sir, you just keep on believing in this trash. The rest of us, will just laugh at you.
megapotamus| 12.17.08 @ 12:13PM
We already see that Barry agrees much more with Bush's conduct of the GWOT than he does with the Leftwing dupes that got him the nomination. Does anyone really think that the Obies will hesitate to waterboard when the responsibility for national security falls to them? It is much like the widely hailed Kerry plan for Iraq, only on the odd moment you could get him to illucidate, the Kerry and Bush plans were nearly identical. The simple fact is that war in Iraq and Afghanistan were the only viable course open to us at the time for security reasons and prescribed by simple decency. The Al Gore of the Clinton years would have done the same except for the nation building. Thank you President Bush for your determination. Not so much for a lot of the other stuff.
rad| 12.17.08 @ 1:14PM
In the 1400s in India, well before America, during Akbar's (moderate muslim) rule, Islamic terrorists opposed him. 2 generations later, Aurangzeb ascended to the throne through domestic terror (killed all his siblings) and then unleashed islamic terror on the continent. All this was before America, before partition, before 9/11, before Iraq war, etc.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 3:56PM
Michael C. Murray -
There were no more attacks on US soil between WTC 1993 and 20 January, 2001 - so, was President Clinton 'keeping us safe', too? I think not; and cannot credit GWB with doing so since 911. Quite simply, our enemies have not chosen to attack, again, within our borders - yet.
Remember, our benighted C-in-C still mumbles on about the 'religion of peace', and 'ordinary muslims moms & dads', yada, yada, yada. He truly is a moron - the one who traded Sammy Sosa.
Dai Alanye | 12.17.08 @ 4:41PM
"Quite simply, our enemies have not chosen to attack, again, within our borders - yet."
Brilliant analysis, Havoc. Now you have only to determine WHY they have chosen not to attack. Might have something to do with our offensive operations, don't you think? When considering this, note that after Midway and Guadalcanal the Japanese also chose not to attack Pearl Harbor again--yet.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 5:07PM
Dai Alanye -
Yes, I think so, too.
The problem with President Bush's 'strategy' is that it leaves the enemy in the field, ready to attack again at a time of his choosing. In WWII, the Japanese were not able to mount another attack against the USA because we destroyed them, en masse wherever we found them. We also destroyed any Japanese infrastructure of economic value.
Except for the fact that they were either dead or starving, the Japanese would have attacked again.
PS: Perhaps, your book is better reasoned than your recent ejaculations. But, that's not the way I would bet.
C.Marshall| 12.17.08 @ 5:39PM
Havoc-
Thank you for unwittingly elucidating Bush's strategery. He has endeavored to destroy the enemy en masse where he has been able to, particularly in that hellhole called Iraq. Except for the fact that they are hunted or dead, pinned down or have given up, they would attack again. It's called being on offense.
And quit discussing other people's ejaculations.
Havoc| 12.17.08 @ 7:03PM
C.Marshall -
President Bush's 'strategy'? He can neither comprehend nor pronounce it. He certainly hasn't practiced any. If he had done so, there would be no ragheaded morons in dirty nightshirts above ground in the Middle East.
Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 7:37PM
Chopra is all peace 'n' love until his interests are threatened, and then Larry the lawyer sends you a letter.
The night Matthew Shephard got killed i called up a radio talk show and said "all of a sudden liberal gays are all for capital punishment-- what happened?"
Then soon afterward a guy calls up and says "you tell Alan that us gays want to kill those goddamned bastards!"
Gotham| 12.17.08 @ 10:33PM
"Son of" gets google alerts and was intrigued to see his name appear in American Spectator...
Needless to say, I disagree with the majority of what is said here, but admit that I am most relieved by the fact that it clearly no longer represents the mainstream.
If it's easier to dismiss me as simply being part of the "family biz" that's too bad, because I quite enjoy the debate.
Meanwhile - agree with you characterization of Saddam the Fascist. The thing is he was already that when the CIA plucked him from exile and installed him as President in Iraq in '79. After he gassed 200k Kurds in the 80's, I believe there was some debate whether US should cut the 1.2 billion in aid that was going his way. As I understand it, a report between the State Department and Whitehouse concluded it wasn't necessary since "Human rights and chemical weapons use aside, in many respects our political and economic interests run parallel with those of Iraq." Mr. Ferrara - were you in the Whitehouse then?
gc
Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 11:23PM
hey gc,
India's foreign policy is pretty um, unsoiritual too.
Lets open India's foreign policy and defense files to have a look at what India has done since its divorce from Britain over 60 years ago
In those 6 decades what has India done in its own self interest comparable to mideast policies of US and NATO?
How can we say until we see the entire archives of India's govt's foreign & defense ministries?
At least America isnt an asian crony capitalist state.
Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 11:26PM
i just don't see it that Indians are morally superior, or as spiritual as they claim to be.
Gotham| 12.18.08 @ 12:27AM
Alan -
Never claimed that India had any moral or spiritual superiority. India's political apparatus today is rife with corruption and moral decay, a travesty to the notion of being the biggest democracy in the world....
Btw - I am an American - born and bred - and a proud one. This is not a blame game but instead a necessary exercise to understand how we are where we are so that America once more can live up to its great idealism.
gc
alan brooks| 12.18.08 @ 1:02AM
okat, but we all know about the bad things America has done, dont you think other countries are too hard on what America did during the cold war?
it wasnt until Soviets invaded Afghanistan they began changing their tune-- and then just a little.
Arab nation knew Russian imperialism was a threat.
you cany just isloate our relationship of convenience with Sodomm hussein, you have to look at the big picture.
just like you make mistakes you cant DO OVER, so did America. hindsight is 20/20
btw who said you werent born in america. i just dont think your dad is any more spiritual than mine was. he was... a liberal.
alan brooks| 12.18.08 @ 1:04AM
sorry for spelling errors but im in a hurry tonight.
PLEASE be as fair to America as you are to your dad.
Nick M.| 12.22.08 @ 1:06PM
What a load of nonsense is this article?!
Scott A Joseph, MD| 1.20.09 @ 7:33PM
Presidents are rarely remembered for their domestic policy; foreign policy drives the histories, especially after 1860.
My prediction on Obama: he will, under pressure from a Democratic Congress (I have an idiot named Oberstar as the rep from my district, for example) start repealing Bush's defenses against terror.
As a result, in 2010, a WMD attack will occur. 5 obvious targets: New York, Washington, LA, to hit media, governmental, and financial centers; or Chicago or Honolulu, to hit Obama where he lives, and crack his will.
I'd put the money on Honoloulu. Easiest to hit, as New Zealand has very poor plane security controls and non-stop flights all the time. In addition, it is quite hospitable to terrorists and hostile to the US (I lived there awhile.).
Oh, well.
links of london | 9.10.09 @ 10:22PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！