Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

Almost immediately after the attacks in Paris the reactions that followed in many cases became problematic. The smoke had hardly even cleared before emotions were swept up and away in a flood of feel-goodisms: hashtag mottos, viral peace signs, symbols, cliches and slogans. There was also the setting up a piano in front of the Bataclan theater where the majority of victims were slaughtered and playing John Lennon’s Imagine, which, by the way, is the unofficial sound track of the imagined godless global totalitarian society liberals imagine to force upon all the earth. It was as though in the aftermath, the significance of everything became lost in a heartfelt wave of emotional seduction. Around the world via social media a great company was moved to join in a mass movement to deal with the emotional fallout, rather than face the realization of what it all means and where this is all headed.

But not all were sucked in by the outpourings of reflexive emotionalism. Mark Steyn got it right in his article, “The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates“, in which, he correctly points out that the acts of solidarity are useless unless they are accompanied by the actions and the resolve necessary to destroy the evil. Steyn concludes with a statement that is certain to shock and greatly offend many when he says, “So screw the candlelight vigil”. An outrageous statement indeed, or is it? In context, however, Steyn makes the case. Sympathy alone does nothing. The sympathy, the solidarity, all the goodisms are meaningless if there is no response that includes the will to use the force necessary to stop the evil. What is the meaning of expressions of grief and solidarity, if they become no more than an emotional movement of feel-goodisms, and all the while, evil is allowed to continue until it destroys the whole world? What is there at all good or righteous in that? And wherein is the righteous indignation? Indeed, Steyn reiterates that very point again in a follow-up article:

Cool Civilizational Death Wish Goes Viral!

It is becoming more obvious with each act of terror, leftist ideology is not going to change. With each new attack many to the left will simply veer further left, feeling somehow Western civilization has brought this evil upon the world by not being PC enough, not loving enough, not sharing or caring enough. In their minds it is our fault the world suffers and the perpetrators of heinous deeds feel and act out their feelings in the horrific way they do. Some even goes as far as implying terrorists are, at least to a point, justified. This leftist mindset is encapsulated in a statement made by Madonna during a recent concert in Stockholm. Interesting, it is in Stockholm of all places that she say this, as I will point out; but Madonna stated:

“Only love will change the world. But it’s very hard to love unconditionally, and it’s very hard to love that which we do not understand, or that which is different than we are. But we have to or this will go on and on forever.”

In simpler terms, we must seek to understand those who are evil and we must love evil away; this, rather than judging evil to be evil and working to destroy it.

Where does this liberal mindset eventually take us? To a place of world peace? Not in the least. I believe civilization will become more polarized by this passive ideology. Liberals will increase their attacks on conservatives, and will also decide Israel needs to be offered up as a sacrifice on the alter of Islam to appease the Islamic god of blood. The response from the left is similar to, if not directly related to Stockholm Syndrome, aka capture-bonding, a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.

Almost always when hostages are take they are held in a building in some undisclosed location. On the other hand, in instances where the captors do not intend on surviving the ordeal, disclosure of the location may be irrelevant. In our case, however, the location is our planet, and by using terror, Islam is seeking to hold the whole world hostage. Has it ever been so done before? — where the whole world was held for ransom? But that is essentially what Islam is doing! They are attempting to hold all of humanity hostage in a captivity of fear. Using acts of terror, they will kill their hostages at will, anywhere in the world at anytime. Terrorism is the means they will use to establish the bondage of fear and bring the world into compliance of Islamic demands. You think it is bad now? What happens if ‘rogues without borders’ get nuclear weapons and terrorism goes radioactive? As attacks continue, the popular and a political movement against Israel and others who embrace Judaeo-Christian values will increase. This movement will continue grow, and rather than see Israel as a fellow victim of the evil, will declare Israel a cause of the evil. Indeed, we have already seen that, but it will snowball. After the 9/11 terror attacks people pulled together for the moment. It did not, however, last very long and shortly afterward politics separated the people into two divisive groups. Ever since, the polarization between right and left has never greater. And it appears that the left, empowered by elitist politicians and media have won the battle for a great many hearts, minds, and souls. Indeed, what we are witnessing now is not an awakening of civilization, but a comatose civilization drifting deeper into a coma and further off into a dream — with symbols floating around, and slogans, and voices singing in the background, “Imagine there’s no borders. . . “.

Read Full Post »

R.A Sprinkle

“…..[F]rom the top of the rocks I see him [Israel], and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people [Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”

Over the last century a paradigm shift has been taking place which is changing forever the world in which we live. It is brought on by the quest for wealth and power and as an attempt to solve the world’s problems and bring about what would be in the minds of it’s architects, a more perfect and peaceful world.

The idea has been envisioned for millennia and pondered by the likes of Plato and other ancient and contemporary philosophers, however, up until the last few decades it has existed mainly as a phantasma.

What I am referring to is the consolidation of world power and the synthesis of nations. There is a consolidation of power currently taking place which was previously hindered by the existence of nation-states dedicated to their own prosperity and security. Globalization has created the interdependence of nations upon other nations, commingling interests and creating the necessity for a universal system of controls to regulate trade, environmental concerns, and to enforce global stability.

Today America’s global dominance is being challenged, not only from without by the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and others, but from within by powerful social cosmopolitans who long to be more like the Europeans. These elitists power-brokers labor to dissolve borders and desire a global equality of nations irrespective of moral values.

Although there still remains ideological conflicts between nations at this stage, a transition is taking place which is shifting the global balance of power from sovereign states to a multipolar global community which seeks unity on international issues to acts as one. This is currently being orchestrated through the United Nations where global consensus is eroding the the rights of individual nations to act in there own best interests. How this collective power of nations will impact the world is first being seen in areas of conflict such as the Middle-East.

This is evident in the ideology expressed by world power-brokers today. For example, in an article by Seth Gitell published in the New York Sun on March 20th, 2007 entitled Oh So Civilized, Monsieur Gitell writes:

“It’s rare to see a public figure lauded for being “cosmopolitan,” but that’s exactly how a professor at Harvard, Stanley Hoffmann, introduced the prime minister of France, Dominique de Villepin before his speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government last Friday.

Mr. de Villepin’s speech, “The United States and Europe: How Can We Face the Changing World Order?” marked his only appearance before a large audience during a recent visit to America and provided a rare glimpse into the Cambridge-Paris crowd.

France’s number two official, clad in a slick black suit and an immaculate gray tie, painted a dark picture of a world torn asunder by American unilateral action — a world that could be saved only through global institutions, such as the United Nations. He stated: “The U.N. needs the true clout of an armed peacekeeping force. Today nearly 100,000 blue-helmeted soldiers are deployed throughout the world. The U.N. Secretariat, like all the world’s armies, needs a permanent military staff. In the long run, a real U.N. army must be our objective.”

Central to the re-establishment of a “global equilibrium” — number three on a list of Mr. de Villepin’s priorities — was finding a “collective solution to the crises in the Middle East.”
The list also included agendas such as containment of the “lack of world order” and a call for ” America, France and Europe” to work together in a “path toward a new world order.”

If a “collective solution” to the Middle-East crisis is number three on his list, what is number one and two on the list but the establishment of a world order and the formation of an international force to deal with number three? The implications could not be greater for the State of Israel.

And as for the French prime minister’s “solution”? Gitell writes,

Mr. de Villepin’s solution for the Middle East merely involved a new international conference, which Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt should attend [de Villepin says that Israel should be forced to attend the conference]. It also called for a restoration of European aid to the Palestinians, never mind the Hamas call for the destruction of Israel, the transfer of taxes to the Palestinians from Israel, and a “fixed date for the creation of a Palestinian state.”

Gitell goes on to note that a fixed date ensures creation of a terrorist state and undermines the requirements for the Palestinians to cease from terrorist actions or recognize Israel’s right to exist. Such a proposal imposed by the international community would place Israel in dire straits regardless of whether Israel should concede to or resist it.

A Multi-Polar World

Until the present, the US has been unwilling to relinquish sovereignty and become subordinate to a supreme international governing body, court, and law. However, can Israel, or any other nation for that matter, rely on the US for protection in the future in the case of such a scenario where major world powers concede supreme authority to an international body?

Furthermore, as for America, maintaining future status as the world’s only super power may not be a choice the US has; it is already evident that there is a shift of power from West to East and the weakness of the West in international affairs of late is apparent. For not only is the political clout of the West diminished internationally, but there is also a shift eastwards in terms of wealth and power. This shift was noted on Tuesday April 3, 2007 by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who declared China’s rise as a global power unstoppable and called for the creation of a “new international order” shaped by Sino-American relations:

“”When friends and colleagues in the United States talk about the rise of China and the problems it presents to us, I say the rise is inevitable. There is nothing we can do to prevent it…….When the center of gravity moves from one region to another, and another country becomes suddenly very powerful, what history teaches you is that conflict is inevitable. What we have to learn is that cooperation is essential…..”

Kissinger went on to say China’s growing political and economic prominence was irreversible, raising the specter of war unless Beijing and Washington can cooperate to create a “new global order.”

This is just the case with China, there is also the challenge to US power from Russia, Europe, and others including countries in South America. Through their combined efforts they present a formidable challenge in international affairs.

A Russian perspective on the global balance of power is reveled in a Russian foreign policy review published on March 27th 2007 which concludes:

“A considerable difference in the vision of the future world order is also on hand – the U.S. one-polar world and the Russian multi-polar world, the supremacy of international interaction in resolving global problems, and leaning on international law and multi-party institutions, the United Nations in the first place,…”

The global trend of power is towards a multi-polar world order. Currently there is a difference in ideologies which creates an obstacle, as noted in the Russian report, but will it hold? For even as the current Administration is weakened; waiting on the sidelines are leftist US politicians who are like minded with the Europeans and Russians on the concepts of a supranational world power which can impose its will internationally. In fact, those waiting in the wings to secure power have used a great deal of resources in their efforts to weaken and supersede the current US leadership in order to facilitate this international union.

This movement within the US in support of a multi-polar world order is confirmed in a number of statements such as those of current presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton who recently before the Council on Foreign Relations issued a called for a revival of internationalism:

“Internationalism versus unilateralism; realism versus idealism … I think it’s fair to say we are now all internationalists and we are all realists.” …First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century.

Virtually all leftist politicians in the US support a supreme international court, international laws, and the empowerment of the United Nations. On 31 December 2000, on his last day as President of the United States, Bill Clinton signed the Treaty of Rome which establishes the International Criminal Court, although, George W. Bush later rejected ratification of the treaty. Notwithstanding, the United Nations still has the US on record as a signatory which has yet to ratify. We may be but one administration away from ratification. [Update:This was written before Obama’s first term as president]

However, it has not been America alone which has slowed down the advancement of a global government, another hesitant party in the relinquishing of national identity and sovereignty has been Britain. Nonetheless, in the UK, Gordon Brown is soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down; he has repeatedly and publicly called for the establishment of a “new world order.”

Behind the scenes back in the States, work towards a global confederation is ongoing. Gitell noted in his New York Sun article that national chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, had told Politico.com that he was “trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover.”

When Gitell questioned Mr. de Villepin on whether Dean had contacted him, de Villepin evaded the question, furthermore, when Gitell persisted de Villepin replied, “I’m not going to comment.”

If this new league of nations should come into being as a final international authority, and it is promoted on a number of fronts, including through issues such as environmental, security, humanitarian, and international conflict resolution, there is little doubt that there will be an attempt to force Israel to make an agreement with the Palestinians on terms dictated by the international body.

Moreover, the transition to international authority will give birth to great difficulties, for not only will the conflict in the Middle-East be agitated, but great social unrest and global tensions will arise from forced conformity. In the process, conflicting interests will occur between members of the international body and fractures will appear resulting the eventual disintegration of the body; this in turn will lead to global chaos and instability of nations around the world.

For the shift of power from West to East into a multi-polar world requires that a new foundation of principles be laid, not based on western Judeo-Christian values which have brought freedom and prosperity and have been the stabilizing force in the world, but rather, a foundation of circumstantial pragmatism and self interest.

Conclusion

The advent of a controlling global authority is not an imagined event. It has been taking place gradually for decades at a pace that is palatable to society. Change has come in increments but the full effects are to follow when the transition is complete.

Pioneers of this transformation to a global society have for decades declared it as inevitable. It is seen and has been promoted by elitists as the salvation of the world, the last and only hope of mankind.

Frederick Meekins captures this mindset in his review of H.G.Wells’s book The Salvaging Of Civilization:

“To some viewing H.G. Wells as a figure prominent at the beginning of the previous century, he has little bearing on the world in which we live today. However, upon contemplating his proposals in The Salvaging Of Civilization — such as the rule by elite committees, extensive control of education, and regulations that bear a frightening similarity to provisions against hate speech — he writes

“We must put ourselves, and our rulers and our fellow men on trial. We must ask ‘What have you done to…help or hinder the peace of mankind?’ A time will come when a politician who has…willfully promoted international dissension will be…much surer of the noose than a private homicide”

We are already too eerily close to living in a world of this author’s own making.”

To be specific, Wells states “international dissension.” But who is to decide who the dissensionist is – and what if is the majority of nations that are the true perpetrators rather than the accused?

The global UN vision is an oligarchy of elitists, eluded to by Plato as “philosopher kings;” these form a multicultural multi-polar authority of nations ruling over all nations and whose rule is enforced by an international coalition of armed forces. The United Nations and the International Court of Justice are but harbingers and the shape of things to come.

Allow me to remind you again of the message brought to Harvard by the French prime minister;

“The U.N. Secretariat, like all the world’s armies, needs a permanent military staff. In the long run, a real U.N. army must be our objective.”

After which, he states he has Israel and the Middle-East in his cross hairs.

This is what the future of global politics holds, a totalitarian state of states and a mob rule of nations; and [Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.

First Published 2008

Read Full Post »

A recent article posted on Israpundit by Felix Quigley, “Herzl and Trotsky…We have to go behind the Neo-leftist lies about both” explores anti-Semitism in some circles of the neo-left today and its roots. This brought up a discussion over the inherency of anti-Semitism of collective systems of government in places where Jewish people reside as a minority.

The purpose of this article will be to explore the relationship between collectivist systems of government and anti-Semitism. Being that leftist are proponents of collective societies such as socialist, communist, and social-democracies, It is my intent here to expose the roots of leftist anti-Semitism by showing the correlation between collective authoritarian cultures and anti-Semitism – And this will hold true not only to the leftist but also to the rightist who embrace collectivist mass movements.

To do this we will first consider the persecution of the Jewish people in Diaspora and the systems and ideologies under which they suffered the most. This is not to be directed against either the right or the left but an analytical look at authoritarian and totalitarian systems in general as breading grounds for anti-Semitism – for I would submit that anti-Semitism in the past and on the left today is a result of their ambitions for a collective society and a controlling authoritarian to manage problems.

Whether we look at the atrocities of the Nazis, the pogroms in Russia, or the persecution meted out during the Inquisition, they all hold in common the pursuit of controlled collective societies – and may I add, you cannot even begin a socialist or communist system on a large scale without a powerful controlling authority and a huge bureaucracy to manage it.

But all of this begs the question, why would collective cultures tend to be anti-Semitic?

There are a number of reasons, most of which are based on social, cultural, and religious foundations, for the Jewish people are unique in all three of these categories.

It would be too much to cover all three categories thoroughly here, so I will begin with social issues being that they relate to the anti-Semitism fostered by socialism, fascism, and communism; for the basic ideology embraced by neo-leftists shares a number of common philosophies with these.

First let us understand that social collectivism is based upon at least a perception of equality among the people, excepting its rulers. The emphasis is placed upon the common good of all as one, and to still discontent all members are to be considered equal, even if that means being equally poor.

With this in mind, lets us consider the prosperity of the Jewish people within various cultures throughout the Diaspora and their ability to excel and become predominant in many divers fields such as finance, commerce, politics, science, arts, etc.. This was often true even within authoritarian and totalitarian societies.

The expectation of the masses in these controlled societies was equality. However, the prolific accomplishments of a small minority of people in their midst created a schism, while some felt threatened others were resentful and envious. To explain the achievements of a disproportionate number of successful Jewish people accusations were put forth accusing them of greed, usury, conspiracies, involvement in cabals, etc. Thus, rather than being praised for their contributions to society, Jews were hated.

In these societies the only way to make the Jewish people “equal” was to persecute, oppress them, and deny them the same rights as the majority to “level out the playing field.”

On the other hand, it may be pointed out that whereas the Jewish people have excelled in closed societies, they have much more so in free capitalistic ones. Why then is there less antagonism and anti-Semitism in these free societies where the Jewish people are even more prolific?

The answer lies within the nature of free societies which stress individual freedom above the collective good. There is no expectation in free societies that people will be equal, but it is accepted that some will excel, and so the achievements of the Jewish people are attributed to their personal accomplishments as individuals rather than other nefarious factors. There is still resentment by a segment of society against those that excel but it is applied for the most part across the board and accusations are directed more broadly against the rich, the powerful, or the elites.

Most of the accusations we see directed against the Jew in freer societies often proceed from the left by people that are avid proponents of big federal government, massive social programs, increased regulations, redistribution of wealth, and internationalism – aka, the arch enemies of the “neo-cons” who blame Israel for troubled US foreign policies.

Next, for an example of religious incompatibility of the Jewish people we need look no further than the Middle-East. Collectivism in its most rabid form is today manifest in militant Islamic culture where the world is called to submit and assimilate into the Islamic faith or face annihilation (with exception to the Jew who is called only to face annihilation.) This is presently the staunchest form of collectivism and it is likely the most anti-Semitic ever.

And this raises the question, is the degree of collectivism practiced related to the degree of power the controlling authority rules by, and furthermore, the degree of anti-Semitism it espouses?

This would seem to hold true in many historical cases when we consider Nazism, fascism, communism, or the authoritarian church in the dark ages.

Furthermore, the different societies around the world today that practice collectivism/socialism to varying degrees, is that practice relative to the degree of anti-Semitism embraced in those societies?

The United States is considered one of the freest and guarantees the most rights to the individual – Its people also are the most pro-Israel in the world. However, with the creation of the EU, and the move toward collectivism in Europe, has that continent become more anti-Semitic, anti-Israel with these developments? The answer seems to be obvious.

It is ironic then that Jews in Diaspora have a history of helping create collective cultures and societies, only to become victims of the authoritarian power they helped build. In the United States today a large majority of Jewish voters are proponents of a socialist agenda, which will lead to a more powerful and larger bureaucracy and greater collectivism. Notwithstanding, as a collective society develops a monolithic identity, minority groups become excluded and suffer persecution.

There are however, some benefits of collectivism and certain things can be accomplished that would be either impossible or dysfunctional without it. With that in mind, in the United States provisions were made in a limited capacity to deal with specific circumstances such as defense, interstate commerce, and eminent domain.

Nevertheless, when collectivism becomes a fix-all to solve all problems, a small minority of people such as the Jewish population may find themselves falling further and further outside the criterion for membership in that society as time goes by, even if they were a strong element in its establishment. Many Jewish people today who fear religious collectivism have sought refuge in secular collectivism – this has and will reward them no better, if even as well.

I have tried to be as brief as possible as to the effects of socialism, communism and other forms of collectivism upon the Jewish people as practiced among the nations outside of Israel. It would be another topic to address collectivism within the Jewish state where the Jewish people are a majority, being that changes some factors which may effect the degree and necessity of it, if only in a limited application – for Israel is unique unto itself among the nations.

by RA Sprinkle

Read Full Post »