‘Anti-Semitism up, Islamophobia down” a New Academic Research Says

One-quarter of Europeans believe that “Jews have too much influence“

31% agree that “Jews in general do not care about anything or anyone but their own kind.”

45.7% of the Europeans somewhat or strongly agree that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.”

About 37.4% agree with the following statement: “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews.”

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon

According to new research conducted by Bielefeld University hatred towards Muslims decreased over the past year while hatred of Jews is growing. Israelis must be concerned. The sudden drop in European Islamophobia doesn’t fit into the Zionist global plan in which Muslims are cornered and ostracised as reactionaries while Israel is dropping bombs in the name of democracy and liberalism. According to the leading Israeli paper Ynet, “the level of resentment against most minorities declined – sexism considerably, Islamophobia slightly. There were only two exceptions: homophobia and anti-Semitism.”(1)

Interestingly enough Ynet reports that “the percentage of people who believe ‘that there are too many Muslims’ in their country is especially high in those countries that actually have a low percentage of Muslims living in them.” One possible explanation may that within European countries benefiting from a large Muslim population, the fear of Islam is actually dissipating. This is not at all surprising given the fact that both Islamic and Christian cultures share very similar universal values and ethical precepts. Unlike Jewish ideology that maintains a certain level of tribal, cultural and social segregation and supremacy, Muslim communities seem to collectively merge into the working classes through the work place, education and economy.

Jewish Power

According to the research very many Europeans are concerned with Jewish domination and power. “One-quarter of Europeans (24.5%) believe that “Jews have too much influence“, and nearly one-third (31%) agree that “Jews in general do not care about anything or anyone but their own kind.” Bearing in mind the embarrassing fact that 50% of MPs in Britain’s shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel we can safely assume that, unlike our politicians, the voters out there are largely waking up to the danger of Zionist infiltration.

Ynet also has some ‘good news’ to report. “61.9% say that Jews “enrich our culture”, especially in the Netherlands, Britain and Germany.” The fact that Jews and ex Jews (in particular) enrich European life is indeed hard to ignore, yet setting aside Lord Cashpoint Levy and Uri ‘Spoon Bending’ Geller, it seems as if, amongst those Jews who contribute to European cultural life, not many openly identify with Israel and its crimes.

As much as Israel uses every possible means to drag us all into an endless war against Islam, the Europeans are coming to terms with the devastating reality of Zionist murderous brutality. Some 45.7% of the Europeans either “somewhat or strongly” agree that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.” In case someone fails to understand the meaning of it all, I will say it plainly: almost half of the Europeans accept that Israel employs genocidal tactics. They basically agree that Israelis are the Nazis of our time. According to Ynet, about 37.4% agree with the following statement: “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews.”

Zionism was there to create a civilized loveable Jew. Not only has it failed, thanks to Israel and Zionism, the resentment towards Jews seem to be greater than ever. The meaning of it all is rather obvious. Israel and its supporting lobbies failed to internalise the real universal meaning of the Holocaust: ‘love thy neighbour’. Instead of ethnic cleansing, starving and dropping white phosphorous, Israel should have learned to live amongst others.

If Europe is as democratic as it claims to be, this clear, escalating animosity towards Israel, Zionism and their relentless lobbies will mature eventually into a political shift.

(1) A clarification is needed here: ‘anti-Semitism’ is a misleading notion. When people refer to ‘anti Semitism’ what they really mean is ‘anti Jewish feelings’. The notion of ‘anti-Semitism’ is there to give a false impression that Jews are a racial group. The truth of the matter is obvious, Jews are neither a race nor have they established a racial continuum. In fact no one resents Jews for their racial belonging or ethnicity. Anti Jewish feelings is in most cases a political and ethical reaction to Jewish tribal politics, Zionism, Israel, Israeli lobbying, global Zionist affairs, Jewish ideology, Jewish supremacy, Israeli war crimes and so on.

Europe: Anti-Semitism up, Islamophobia down by Sarah Stricker
Ynetnews 6.12.09

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3815828,00.html

Study on ‘group-focused enmity’ conducted by researchers from University of Bielefeld in Germany finds hatred of Muslims decreased over past year, while hatred of Jews and homosexuals growing. Poland defined as most racist country

Right-wing parties are growing stronger in Europe, and Swiss citizens have even voted in favor of a ban on mosque minarets, yet the fear or hatred of Islam in the continent has dropped over the past year, according to a study conducted in Germany and published Sunday. However, hatred of Jews and homosexuals is on the rise.

For the last eight years, the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence at the University of Bielefeld has been running an annual study called “German Conditions” to learn about “group focused enmity“ such as xenophobia, sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, and prejudices against unemployed, disabled, homeless or homosexual people in Germany.

Due to the financial crisis and the fears of the future, poverty and unemployment that are being stoked by that, the researchers expected a rise this year.

But compared to last year’s results (as well as those of 2002), the level of resentment against most minorities declined – sexism and racism even considerably, Islamophobia slightly. There were only two exceptions: Homophobia and anti-Semitism.

Hatred of both groups is on the rise as they are considered to be found also among people of a high status.

Beate Küpper, one of the study’s main researchers, believes that the financial crisis may in fact be a possible explanation for that. Küpper said that although in comparison to other European countries Germany was on average, it was staggering that in the light of German history, 48% still agreed with anti-Semitic statements.

For the first time, the study also compared xenophobia among European countries like Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Poland, and Hungary. According to their findings, the level of prejudices against minorities in Europe is alarming.

About 50.4% of the population agreed that “there are too many immigrants” in their country, 54.4% believe that “the Islam is a religion of intolerance.” Interestingly enough, the percentage of people who believe “that there are too many Muslims” in their country is especially high in those countries that actually have a low percentage of Muslims living in them.

Nearly one-third (31.3%) of the Europeans somewhat or strongly agree that “there is a natural hierarchy between black and white people”. A majority of 60.2% stick to traditional gender roles, demanding that “women should take their role as wives and mothers more seriously.” Some 42.6% deny equal value of gay men and lesbian women and judge homosexuality as “immoral”.

Hiding behind criticism of Israel

Anti-Semitism is also still widely spread in Europe. The team of scientists from the universities of Amsterdam, Bielefeld, Budapest, Grenoble, Lisbon, Marburg, Oxford, Padua, Paris, and Warsaw found that 41.2% of Europeans believe that “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims during the Nazi era”. The highest degree of affirmation was in Poland – 72%, and the lowest in the Netherlands – 5.6%.

One-quarter of Europeans (24.5%) believe that “Jews have too much influence“, and nearly one-third (31%) agree that “Jews in general do not care about anything or anyone but their own kind. On the other hand, 61.9% say that Jews “enrich our culture”, especially in the Netherlands, Britain and Germany.

They study also measured the degree of anti-Semitism hidden behind a specific criticism of Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians that uses anti-Semitic terms such as “war of persecution” and a generalization to “all Jews”.

Some 45.7% of the Europeans (apart for France, where this facet of anti-Semitism was not measured) somewhat or strongly agree that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.” About 37.4% agree with the following statement: “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews.”

Overall, the level of anti-Semitic attitudes varies quite a lot across Europe with comparably lower levels of anti-Semitic attitudes in Britain and the Netherlands and significantly higher levels in Portugal, and especially Poland and Hungary.

The Complete Guide to Killing Non-Jews

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon

It is rather impossible to grasp the magnitude of the crimes against humanity performed by the Jewish state in the name of the Jewish people unless one elaborates on Jewish culture in the light of Judaic teaching.

Zionism was founded as a secular movement. It was there to provide the emancipated Diaspora Jew with a ‘national home land’ of his or her own. However, Zionism was rather effective in transforming the Old Testament from a spiritual text into a land registry. As the truth of Israeli barbarism is unfolding a devastating continuum is being established between Israeli murderous policies and Judaic Goy hating.

It would be fair to argue that Judaic teaching is not monolithic. As we know, one of the only Jewish collectives that stands along the Palestinians call themselves the Torah Jews (Neturei Karta), a Jewish orthodox sect. In other words, the Torah must have a humanist side to it.

The following is a review of Torat ha-Melekh, a “kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew”. It was published by Ma’ariv Israel’s second biggest paper. It is a must read. I would assume that those American and British corrupted politicians who are happy to take donations from Israeli Tycoons and other ‘Friends of Israel’ better start to understand once and for all what kind of Ideology they are aligning themselves with.

Here is a full translation of an article in the Maariv newspaper of Israel

Ma’ariv 09.11.09 (p. 2) by Roi Sharon –

When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching—INT], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.

Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.

Throughout the book, the authours deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authours are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.

The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts—INT]

“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”

The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”

One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.

In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directed mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.

Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”

In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.

“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”

Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”

Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directed only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”

One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where RabbisShapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”

Iran Rabbi urges Jews to burn controversial book

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:57:20 GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=111484&sectionid=351020101

Iran Rabbi Urges Jews to Burn Controversial Book

By Press TV

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:57:20 GMT

A prominent rabbi of the Iranian Jewish community has urged his congregation to burn ‘The King’s Torah’, a controversial book, which supports the murder of non-Jews.

In his recently released book, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva (religious school) in the occupied West Bank, endorses the murder of non-Jews — even babies and children — if they pose an actual or potential threat to Israel.

The book, co-authored by Yossi Elitzur, states that Jews are allowed to kill “those who, by speech, weaken our sovereignty”, adding that it is permissible “to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation.”

The decree is backed by several Israeli rabbis including Yitzhak Ginsburg and Yaakov Yosef.

Shapiro claims that the Torah and Talmud fully justify his edict.

The Iranian rabbi, however, said on Monday that the book’s message, in fact, directly contradicted the teachings of Moses. Rabbi Golestaninejad said the book was not based on the tenets of the Jewish faith.

One of the Ten Commandments in Exodus states “Thou shalt not murder.” In the Book of Genesis, as well, murder is forbidden and it is stipulated that anyone who spills blood, must pay for his deed with the spilling of his own blood, said the rabbi, who called the edict a blatant distortion of religious teachings.

Golestaninejad said the word ‘rabbi’ means ‘wise’, so it is very unlikely that a wise person, who is responsible for teaching religion, would condone the murder of persons of other beliefs.

Anyone who utters anything in opposition to the faith, and then goes on to falsely attribute it to the Torah, Mishnah, Talmud or Halakha deserves punishment and chastisement, he said, adding that the idea behind the verdict is absolutely false.

Jews are followers of Moses. Hence, they do not adhere to Zionism and the ideas of Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, the rabbi said.

Rabbi Golestaninejad condemned the publication of ‘The King’s Torah’ and called on all Jews to burn the book which he said propagates non-religious ideas.
Iran Rabbi urges Jews to burn controversial book
Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:57:20 GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=111484&sectionid=351020101

More Militant Vegans, Less Ethical Butchers

A friend of mine recently brought to my attention a former vegan who has now re-invented himself as the “Ethical Butcher” (a title right up there with Peacekeeper missiles, limited autonomy, and military intelligence). The butcher writes: “After 14 years as a vegetarian, a few of those as a quite ‘militant’ vegan, I became a butcher. The factors that went into me taking the position are many, but the result was maybe quite predictable. Within a month I was a full-fledged meat eater. What has not changed is my passion for the welfare of animals. Through my work as a butcher and chef, I now see a more direct way to influence and work for change in the meat industry and to improve the quality of life for all of the animals we rely on for food.”

Such backlash in the face of compassionate evolution is not uncommon. For example, just as more and more women begin to challenge gender roles, the patriarchal culture countered with Howard Stern, Maxim, and Spike TV. But I digress…

Becoming a butcher in the name of animal welfare is like joining the Marines to promote peace. What’s next, the Ethical Executioner with his “passion” for the “welfare” of prisoners? Surely, he’d just be choosing a “more direct way to influence and work for change,” following the lead of his butcher comrade.

In a society less and less capable of critical, independent thought, this pro-meat character will probably be widely praised as the antidote to “militant” vegans. You know, the food Nazis. By current standards, you could pack a calf into a veal crate or pump food down a goose’s gullet or grind up live male chicks to fertilize your fields and run no risk of being called militant. For that matter, you can clear cut forests, blow off mountain tops in search of coal, and drop white phosphorous on villages filled with brown children and garner virtually no attention at all…let alone be labeled a militant.

Choose a lifestyle of compassion and logic, speak out against vivisection, or protest the use of fur? You, my friends, are a worthy of a Hitler mustache.With the global economy collapsing like a house of cards, 80% of the world’s forests cut down, 90% of the large fish in the ocean gone, more military conflicts than anyone can count, and our eco-systems rapidly approaching the point of no return, there’s never been a more urgent time to be a truly militant vegan.

At some point, we each have to decide: Do we respect all life or not? If we choose life instead of death, then we must view the culture holistically. To divide issues of animal suffering, eco-destruction, and human rights, is to fall into the trap of the dinosaur Left. For example, ZNet founder Michael Albert, who writes: “I see no comparison in importance between seeking to eliminate the roots and branches of sexism, and seeking to eliminate the roots and branches of violence against animals. I see no comparison in importance between how chickens are treated and how women or any humans are treated. In fact, for me the animal rights agenda resonates barely at all, and the anti-sexism agenda is part of my life.”

Let’s be clear: Attempting to separate sexism from violence against animals (and all nature) is like trying to separate the human circulatory system from the respiratory system. If such obvious connections are not being made by the entrenched Left, I have to wonder: Why is anyone wasting even 5 minutes of their time on such myopia?

Since Michael Albert can’t seem to stop quoting Dylan, this song excerpt is for him, the Ethical Butcher, and all those who seek to fragment and obscure the big picture:

Don’t criticize what you can’t understand … your old road is rapidly agin’Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin’

Do Not Blame Barack

Contrary to what my title indicates, I probably judge Barack Obama more harshly than most reading this page. I don’t think he is just a misguided ideologue or merely a creature of expediency. I believe, practically speaking, that he is an evil man. That is to say, while he is largely ignorant like so many others, he has developed an affinity for evil. He mistakes it for good.

Yet, to be blunt, Obama doesn’t alarm me as much as the average American. To explain why, I’ll present something Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero said 2000 years ago when lamenting Julius Caesar’s rise to dictator:

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions . . . . Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’ Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man.

Barack Obama is only one man. A bad man, yes, but he is a symptom more than a cause. Without millions of fawning Americans, he would just be a community agitator, vainly preaching Alinsky principles from a soapbox. Of course, he is a symptom that exacerbates the underlying problem, and symptomatic treatment — to ease immediate pain and hardship — is certainly in order. But it is only the worst of physicians who focuses only on symptoms while ignoring the cancer eating away at the patient’s midst.

Some of us lament the presence of self-professed communists such as Van Jones — and other assorted intellectual mutants, such as Cass Sunstein and John Holdren — in government, and how we elected a man who broke bread with self-professed communists such as Bill Ayers. But why complain now? We’ve had self-professed communists such as Bill Ayers — and other assorted intellectual mutants, such as Ward Churchill, Cass Sunstein and John Holdren — in academia for many decades. And good Americans still donated money to universities and still sent their most precious possessions, their children, to them. So, should it be any surprise that millions of these children would, knowing nothing and feeling all the wrongs things, flock to the polls and cast votes for people just like their teachers and professors? You may say that their parents knew nothing of these universities’ true nature. But it was their place to find out. And Obama did not create the modern academy. He is more a creation of it.

We also criticize Obama for saying “We no longer are [just] a Christian nation” and while speaking in Turkey that “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.” But can we really say he’s wrong? Has Christmas not become completely commercialized? How many of us say grace with our families before meals? How many of us pray every day? How many Americans subscribe to the modern perversion of the “separation of church and state” idea? How many of us say “God Bless” upon parting? Have the majority of American “Christians” not descended into moral relativism? It is here that some will call me a religious nut. All right, but I simply note that a Christian nation would actually practice Christianity and that if we are satisfied to be only nominally Christian, it lends weight to the argument that we’re not actually Christian. Of course, we certainly can condemn Obama for attending a pseudo-Christian church and being part of the problem, but he didn’t create our secular age. He is more a creation of it.

One thing Obama certainly did help create is the tea-party phenomenon. It is the largest, most impressive grassroots movement I can remember and I truly hope it grows beyond what even the most zealous reader would prefer. Yet, when I hear the protesters complain about the violation of the Constitution, I have to wonder where they’ve been. Did they miss the activist 1947 “separation of church and state ruling”? Have they learned about FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society? Don’t they realize that the federal government long ago exceeded its constitutional bounds? Where is the constitutional mandate for Uncle Scam to involve itself in and/or fund housing, food stamps, farm subsidies, Medicaid, global-warming research, mass transit, and school sports programs? The fact is that most things the federal government has its claws into are none of its affair. Thus, to only now complain about constitutional trespasses is like having finally noted the invasion of Poland when the Nazis started bombing Great Britain.

We also have to ask how serious most Americans really are about respecting the Constitution. Here’s a little test for them: Are you willing to give up your Social Security in the name of constitutional adherence?

I thought so.

The average American has his version of acceptable constitutional violation, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has hers, and Obama has his. And Obama didn’t create the “living document” mentality. He is more a creation of it.

Then there is our putrid popular culture. Effete Hollywood types — such as the Obama sycophants in this bizarre Harpo Productions video — thuggish rappers, MTV stoner types and the rest of our decadence czars helped galvanize the youth and propel the empty vessel to victory. Yet, while entertainment is a bastion of the left, it’s not entirely a creation of it. The reality is that we, the people, empowered them. We watched their movies; laughed at their salacious jokes; were titillated by their prurience; and tolerated their mainstreaming obscenity, homosexuality and gratuitous violence. We allowed our children to dress in their ghetto styles and imbibe pure and utter filth. Like with so many other things, we helped create our entertainment — a major symptom of spiritual malaise — and then it helped induce many secondary symptoms. And one of them is Obama.

Of course, nothing is more associated with that symptom than the Shill Media, but I think you know what’s coming. Who bought the mainstream papers for all those decades, watched the nightly news and bought all the lies? “How could people know?” you ask? Well, some certainly knew — and some of those knew better than others.

Like Cicero, I’m sure I sound quite condemnatory, but I’m not here to lay a curse or consign anyone to Hell. I don’t want to be found guilty of the George Bernard Shaw mistake G.K. Chesterton criticized most colorfully when he wrote

It is not seeing things as they are to think first of a Briareus with a hundred hands, and then call every man a cripple for only having two. It is not seeing things as they are to start with a vision of Argus with his hundred eyes, and then jeer at every man with two eyes as if he had only one. And it is not seeing things as they are to imagine a demigod of infinite mental clarity, who may or may not appear in the latter days of the earth, and then to see all men as idiots.

In reality, for us to have avoided that ever-repeated pattern of civilizational decline, the common man would have to be a very uncommon man, something, in the least, like a sublime moral philosopher. And, certainly, no person will have, metaphorically speaking, a hundred industrious hands, a hundred all-seeing eyes or even come close to enjoying demigod-like mental clarity. Yet a nation doesn’t have to resign itself to being blind and crippled, either. We can usually manage one more hand and eye.

Truth be known, when we elected Obama, the nation said “Look, ma, no hands!” with its eyes closed. It required corrupted judgment to be blind to what Obama was. Note that “corrupted” is different than “corrupt.” When saying a computer file is corrupted, there is no implication that it’s evil; rather, it simply means it no longer functions as it should.

This partially explains why facts often don’t matter today. Just as correct input may not yield correct output if fed into a malfunctioning computer, all the necessary facts may not yield a correct conclusion when processed by a corrupted mind. And anyone with a properly functioning virtue file would have sensed the lack of same in Obama. After all, there were so many indications, from his radical associations to his tolerance for infanticide (that’s what you call a clue) to the fact that he once allowed his then two-year-old daughter to listen to rap to his empty sloganeering. Yes, we could’ve . . . known.

Yet my point here is not about the average person, who isn’t reading substantive commentary anyway. It’s that even most of us who oppose Obama and are political are just political, content to fight the battle with one hand and one eye. So many of us — this includes readers and commentators — are satisfied with boilerplate; it’s Alinsky this and Alinsky that, San Fran Nan, Afghanistan and the Taliban, this bill and that political shill. This isn’t to say there’s not a place for such things, as many do need a course in politics 101. But if we want to have any chance of winning the war, we must move on to graduate work and fight it on the deepest levels, the spiritual and cultural. We must scrutinize ourselves and evaluate how we have been complicit in empowering the culture that spawns Barack Obamas. We must remember that those of us who are engaged are a minority weighed against an apathetic majority. A few stones however, can be substantial enough to tip the scales against a million pebbles. But this can only happen if we so greatly increase the weight of our virtue that it outweighs the vice that is everywhere.

I once heard a man of the cloth put it perfectly, saying “Everyone is in a different stage of conversion.” Every thought we contemplate, word we utter and action we take move us closer to or further away from perfection. And it’s always time for another hand and another eye.

The Architecture of Globalization

Bigger and Fewer…

“What answers are possible when man is resolutely evil? How can a family crisis be resolved when the members are all evil and persistent in their evil? What answer is there to rulers who are evil and have most people on their side? Again, when churchmen are evil, how can the church be other than evil? Very often reform and change are the least desirable solutions! To expect answers then is itself evil. It is rather a time for judgment and rebuilding.” Dr. R. J. Rushdoony

Centralization of authority is often a prelude to despotism. False and deceitful propaganda is used to secure a willing population. Totalitarian regimes coerce resistors into supporting conquest. Corporations gobble up other corporations and buy large individual proprietors. Control of these behemoths is centered several levels above their contact with the public. Centralization focuses on masses as opposed to individuals. Centralization squelches the voice of the individual.

This is where we are in America. In the past several decades more and more authority has been vested in the Presidency. Congress has forsaken its responsibilities allowing vital checks to be removed. Businesses have consolidated, purchased each other, and merged; they have become larger and larger and fewer and fewer.

Our schools have consolidated and control of education centered in the Federal Department of Education. Christian churches are more interested in growth than in God’s Kingdom and identity hiding, mega-churches are common.

The powerful, clandestine push for world government involves the ultimate centralization. David Rockefeller’s Council on Foreign Relations is deeply involved in that quest. Richard Haas, President of the United States CFR wrote in the Taipai Times, “Globalization implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker….States must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function….Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.” (Please note that Haas believes government should provide the basic needs of citizens – not citizens themselves!)

As we progress in the Electronic Age the high tech companies that manufacture the products involved are all geared to the masses. Decision makers in these companies are determined to evade direct contact with the public and use foreign entities to that end. Software glitches can involve volumes of useless reading and additional hours waiting for tech support which turns out to come from Asia in the form of preprogrammed, cost effective, English impaired Indian citizens.

Law enforcement has evolved in a similar fashion. The street cop enforces the law with no regard for justice; there is no spirit to the law, no discernment, no mercy. Cops are trained to be jackbooted tyrants whose duty is to fill the jails and extract exorbitant fines from the public, whose taxes, ironically, pay their salaries. Law is a force that, like most modern authority, allows no rebuttal. When the cop gives you a ticket for running a stop sign when there was no traffic for miles the injustice of the application of the law is never considered. Policemen function above the rights of every individual citizen. Encountering one of these shameless tyrants strips a citizen of all rights rendering him helpless and subject to arbitrary incarceration. Law enforcement and the courts that back it up are no longer friends to the public but rogue forces that will intimidate you, steal your money, and if you resist throw you into a jail your own taxes have paid for. Law that fails to produce justice is soon rightfully hated along with those that enforce it.

Few Americans understand that the government does no need to own the press and media in order to control it. For the past several decades the world press and media has acted as a stooge for world government. Happenings that should be investigated and accurately reported are ignored. Real and obvious conspiracies are subjected to large doses of mockery. Our news and media is tainted with a Zionist Jewish agenda and its associated propaganda. Majority ownership is confined to a tiny but powerful group of collusive Jewish Zionists. When Russian Jewry promoted and was deeply involved in the Russian Revolution they were driven by a desire for a world regime that would benefit Jewish causes. That agenda migrated with them to the United States and accounts for substantial Jewish support for world government.

Aided by a strong Jewish agenda the United States has traveled far down the road to totalitarian government. Their demands have about eliminated Christianity from the public square. They have supported abortion and homosexuality and will soon succeed in encoding laws that will result in the incarceration of Bible believing Christians. Yes, I understand that all Jews are not involved. But the Jews that are involved are influential, wealthy and powerful.

We are constantly bombarded with the idea that our soldiers are stationed all over the world and are engaged in a war in the Middle East to “protect our freedom”. We are enjoined to pray for and support our troops because they are fighting for our freedom. Most Americans actually believe this lie. Propaganda is a powerful opinion maker. Our freedom has nothing to do with the war or with the stationing of our troops throughout the world. What it has to do with is Empire – the American Empire. Our freedom is actually inversely proportional to extension of our hegemony over the world.

The Healthcare bill is the latest attempt to rob us of freedom by extending the power of the state. National healthcare is a dangerous proposition. John W. Robbins in an article entitled “The Ethics and Economics of Healthcare” paraphrased Leon Trotsky, “In a country where the sole physician is the State, opposition means death by healthcare rationing. The old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: Who does not cooperate shall not recover.” Robbins maintains that every dictator of the Twentieth Century was an advocate of national healthcare. He included in that group: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Tito, Mai Tse-Tung, Yoshihito and Horohito, Peron of Argentina, Franco of Spain, and Salazar of Portugal.

Healthcare providers were used to commit dissenters for reprogramming in Russia and for experimentations on hapless human prisoners in Germany. Even without centralized healthcare United States providers have conducted some heinous procedures. The Tuskegee experiment has received a fair amount of publicity but the extent human experimentation is relatively unknown to most Americans. Click up this list. If every citizen could read and understand the mind set of our elite rulers do you think they would still want to make them responsible for their Health?

Caring for the sick is an act of compassion. Compassion is not an attribute of the state and the health of sick people cannot be related to monetary gain.

Medical care is unavailable to many United States citizens because compassion has been wrung out of the system. Doctors do not want to be bothered with sick patients because sick patients require time and time to the doctor means money; the more patients he sees the more billings he gets and the less time it takes the more leisure he has! We have thousands of doctors in the United States that do not see sick patients. Sick patients are referred to Emergency rooms where the working people of our nation are robbed blind so that aliens, derelicts and the poor can get free care. The government is partially to blame but doctors must bear their share of responsibility. Avarice and demands for leisure have overtaken compassion and the practice of medicine reflects that change.

Compassion cannot be bought and sold. Compassion is an individual characteristic; the government does not have compassion, neither does our system of medical care. If every medical doctor in the United States would begin seeing sick patients tomorrow morning with out regard to their ability to pay, the healthcare crisis would be solved.

Egalitarianism is not a Godly concept. When the government seeks to provide equal medical care to all citizens it embarks on the same disaster that is evident in our courts, our jails, and our laws. We defy God’s wisdom and create a tangled mess of injustice, cruelty, and death. Jesus did not heal everyone when He walked on the earth; He healed some and not others. He does not choose everyone; He chooses whom He chooses.

The Bible teaches that he who does not work will not eat. Compassion must be accompanied by a personal relationship. Help and healing should be dispensed with discretion.

Dr. R. J. Rushdoony writes about the difference between Christian compassion and government solutions. The elite powers that control government believe compassion is a characteristic of the lower classes; their intent is not compassion but control. “Compassion is now a socially approved and politically necessary virtue, and its expression is statist welfarism. The goal is to satisfy the poor, and to keep them far from the rich. Compassion has thus become an instrument of elitism rather than of Christian community.” Rushdoony quotes from the works of English writers Golby and Purdue “while Christian reforms worked to make men more Godly and thereby raise them out of their poverty and sin, the Enlightenment men placed their hope in making men more rational”.

God’s system of authority is de-centralized. He places primary power in the hands of the male heads of families and designates the Church and the government as agencies of safety and theological certitude. Human control is tyranny and elite secularist always seeks it.

Death of the West: Our Sexual Identity Crisis

Perhaps you’ve heard the tragic story of David Reimer. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1966, David was the victim of a botched circumcision that left his penis charred beyond surgical repair. His parents Ron and Janet, no doubt beside themselves, were confused about the best way to proceed. Then, one day, they saw a man named Dr. John Money on television.

Money was talking about his theory of “gender neutrality,” which states that “gender identity” is learned rather than innate. The idea was that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences; this implies that if a child were altered so as to superficially resemble the opposite sex and was raised as one of its members, he would be happy with that sexual identity. Hearing this, the Reimers hoped they had found their salvation.

They took their boy to Money, who told them that their son’s penis could not be restored and that he stood a much better chance of living a happy life if “sex-reassignment surgery” (in reality, reassigning sex is about as possible as reassigning species) were performed and he was raised as a girl. The Reimers agreed, and the surgery was performed when the boy, who would be named “Brenda,” was 22 months old.

In reality, the kindest way to describe Money’s theory is fanciful. His idea of “gender neutrality” was still in vogue when I was a youth, and “vogue,” in the most frivolous sense, is the correct term. It was always more style than science; it was something that I, even as a teen, knew was bunk. Yet who would listen to people such as me? We were old-fashioned, behind the times. And it didn’t matter that Money was Alfred Kinsey redux and believed pedophilia was lovely if it was for “love.” It didn’t matter that David and his twin brother, Brian, said that Money sexually abused them during photo shoots. He was a “doctor,” a Ph.D. on the cutting edge of a brave new world.

Only, David (“Brenda” at the time) wanted nothing to do with that world. Although he was never told he was a boy, had been surgically altered, was dressed and raised as a girl and was regularly seeing Money for therapy, he resisted his “gender assignment” from the outset. He acted like a boy, played with boys’ toys and objected to seeing Money from the age of seven. It wasn’t going well — and it wouldn’t end well.

At the age of 14, in a rare commendable act of teen rebellion, David threatened suicide if he were forced to continue with Money’s prescriptions. This prompted his parents to finally tell him the truth about his condition. With his eyes opened, he then replaced his estrogen treatments with male hormone therapy, took the name “David,” started living as a boy, underwent reconstructive genital surgery and later married a woman who already had children. Yet the damage had been done. His tormented life which began in such a tragic way came to a tragic end: he did commit suicide, at the age of 38.

Dr. Money, too, is now dead. Yet he died with his ideological boots on; not only did he fail to repent, he fraudulently portrayed David’s case — the one for which he was most famous — as a success for years after its failure was obvious. This, and his refusal to ever own up to the failure, only increased the chances that other children would be thus scarred.

As a testimonial to how quickly fashions pass away, Money’s theory has joined him in the grave. The stake through its heart came in the 1990s, with brain research and an improved understanding of intrauterine development proving conclusively that the sexes are different even within the womb and the skull. These new findings expressing old wisdom were related as revelation, reflecting the idea that nothing is truly valid until vindicated by “science.” So there was no collective mea culpa from the psychological establishment for clouding reality and misleading generations of naïve parents. They just continued without missing a beat, as if it were a matter no more significant than recommending the wrong size shoes for the kids. Worse still, they have now moved on to their next mistake.

We have heard about the curious case of Caster Semenya, the 18-year-old South African runner who has been competing as a woman. Semenya has become the focus of suspicion (I’ll use masculine pronouns, as I’m convinced this individual is a boy who experienced abnormal intrauterine development) because of his masculine physique, deep voice, development of facial hair, male mannerisms and the fact that he has been winning races by wide margins. As a result, a battery of medical exams to determine his true sex has been conducted, although the results have not been officially released. Yet the real story here is not what investigation may tell us about Semenya. It is what our reaction to Semenya tells us about ourselves.

This is reflected in comments found throughout the Internet. For instance, consider “JimBob” posting under this Daily Mail piece, who said,

“Why is everyone talking about genetics? What about Caster’s own mind – if she believes within herself that she’s female, then she is.”

Echoing this sentiment here, “Green Is Good” wrote,

“SHE identifies HERself as a female. Done.”

Then, back to the Mail, “Livio” opined,

“This is a clear case of gender identity discrimination. What if she is a man who identifies himself as a woman?”

That’s interesting. What if you’re a lunkhead who identifies himself as intelligent?

Yet it isn’t sufficient to just dismiss this with sarcasm, as this isn’t the rambling of only a few twisted minds.

What these posters are expressing is the handiwork of today’s Dr. Moneys, “transgender” theory. This is the idea that your “gender” can be whatever you want it to be — male, female, both male and female or neither, etc. — that it isn’t limited by biology. If you have a problem with this, bravo, but then you should have a problem with the word “gender” itself. Why? Because its current usage (it used to apply only to words) was originated by people such as Money for the purposes of facilitating the relation of their theories. Understand that while many people use “gender” as a synonym for “sex,” that is not its social sciences definition, which dictates that it refers to social rather than biological differences. Yet people love to use this and other elements of the lexicon of the left. It’s a fascinating phenomenon. If you replace a simple, one-syllable word such as “poor” or “sex” with impressive sounding terms such as “underprivileged” or “gender” for ideological reasons, people, oblivious to the underlying agenda and wishing to sound sophisticated, will glom onto them. You see, simpletons, who are relatively rare, prefer simple words. And the only other group that does is rarer still: true intellectuals. But I digress.

So, returning to Semenya, many people express the shocking idea that his actual sex should have no bearing on whether he should be allowed to compete with women. It’s that modern phenomenon — image is everything, reality is negotiable.

This notion has so taken hold that we’ve recently heard of two stories out of Britain wherein young boys, ages 12 and 9, showed up in school earlier this month as “girls,” sporting girls’ clothing and ponytails and bearing feminine names. And the schools are kowtowing to them, telling other pupils that they’ll be punished if they don’t handle the “sex change” “sensitively.” Yet sensitivity is not for the other children, who are upset and confused. In just the way that David Reimer’s body was mutilated in deference to yesterday’s latest theory, their minds must be mutilated in deference to today’s.

Now, even if someone subscribes to “transgender” theory, it is striking that he would allow a child who is too young to decide to have sex decide what sex he should be. How did we get to this point?

These parents, like Ron and Janet Reimer before them, are listening to the respected social scientists of their day. These “experts” tell them that there is something called “gender dysphoria,” which is the persistent feeling that one is a member of one sex trapped in the body of the other. It’s enough to convince many parents, such as those of German Tim Petras, who received female hormone “treatments” at age 12 and now goes by the name of Kim. Yet on what basis is this diagnosis really made?

Feelings.

It is truly reflective of this age, where relativism has obviated reason. That is to say, if there are no absolutes, no Truth to use as a yardstick for judging among feelings, the feelings themselves become the ultimate arbiter. Then, of course, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a Fig Newton if it feels like one.

But one of the problems with emotion is that it is by its very nature irrational. And if anyone would defend an emotion-based diagnosis such as “gender dysphoria,” note that it’s brought to us by the same psycho-babblers who have given us something dubbed “body dysmorphia.” This is this persistent feeling that a certain body part, such as an arm or leg (or multiple body parts), doesn’t belong on one’s body. And if you think it isn’t taken seriously, know that doctors have amputated healthy limbs on this basis.

Be shocked — that is, unless you accept “gender dysphoria” as legitimate. Then you’d better be introspective. For what is the difference? Why would you accept the emotion-based diagnosis of gender dysphoria but not the emotion-based one of body dysmorphia? Why are the feelings of those who suffer from the latter invalid but the feelings of those who suffer from the former a credible arbiter? Both groups have persistent feelings that their bodies aren’t as they should be. Both groups cannot bear to live in their bodies as they are. Both groups want to have their bodies altered. And both groups have found “experts” willing to put them under the knife. Sure, it strikes us as the most horrid malpractice when a doctor amputates healthy body parts, such as a pair of legs. But, then, should we view it any less dimly simply because those healthy body parts are between the legs?

Lamentably, today the answer is often yes, and this speaks volumes about our society. That is, we’ve all heard that old stereotype of a lunatic, the guy in an asylum who thinks he is Napoleon. Now the asylums have largely been emptied, and I think I know why: we’ve turned the outside world into an asylum. What was once only acceptable to a small group within the scariest of walls — detachment from reality — has now been mainstreamed. You can be a man who thinks he is a woman, yet no straitjacket is slapped on you. It is slapped on the mouths of those who dare say self-image isn’t reality.

And that is the point: there is something called reality. When feelings tell one he is, or should be, something he is not or shouldn’t be — a girl, a legless man or Napoleon — the sane conclusion is that you’re confronted with a psychological problem, not a physical one. It may be intractable, and it is certainly easier to mutilate the body than cure the mind. But you cannot mutilate reality, only obscure it. If a man loses his genitalia in an accident, does he cease to be male? Or, if “gender” is a continuum as today’s Moneys say, is he less male? Did David Reimer cease to be a boy because he was mutilated and given estrogen against his will? Of course, the “experts” would say the answer is no, since he never saw himself as a girl. Again, though, feelings cannot be the arbiters of reality. After all, I may have hypertrichosis like Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy, undergo operations to create a snout, paws and a tail, howl under the moonlight and change my name to Spot. Yet am I sane if I call myself a different species?

So what are we to conclude about “gender” science? Decades ago its “experts” said society could turn your boy into a girl if it felt like it; now they say he can turn himself into a girl if he feels like it. Is it just a coincidence that Dr. Money’s “gender neutrality” theory accorded with his day’s feminist claim that sex roles should be discarded because the sexes are essentially the same? Is it just a coincidence that the current “transgender” theory accords with our day’s homosexual claim that sex roles should be discarded because everyone and his values are essentially different? It is at all possible that these theories have less to do with sound science than the spirit of the age?

We have gone from the proposition that “gender” can be whatever society says it is to the proposition that it can be whatever the individual says it is without ever stopping to wonder if the second idea is just a crank like the first. But most won’t wonder because today we place more faith in doctors than doctrine, and today’s doctors say that eternal common sense and yesterday’s doctors’ nonsense are wrong. Yet the most significant thing that distinguishes them from Dr. John Money is that they are still alive — and their theory is not yet dead.

Is it Time to Disband the Republican Party?

Is it time to disband the Republican Party?

Surely, the events of the past week suggest that the G.O.P. has outlived its shelf-life and needs to be conveyed pell-mell to the nearest dumpster. First, there was the Joe Wilson flap, where the indignant representative from South Carolina barked “You Lie” to President Barack Obama during his prepared remarks to Congress on health care. This is the very same Wilson who applauded all the bogus allegations about imaginary weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaida made in countless speeches by ex-president George W Bush. Now we are expected to believe that Joe is acting in “good conscience” in opposing minimal health care to a larger swath of uninsured Americans?

Right.

Typical of Bush-era Republicans, Wilson issued a groveling apology to the White House, and then–just hours later–made an about-face in an appearance on the Sean Hannity program. Wilson defended all the canards which Obama effectively disproved in Wednesday night’s speech. Here’s a clip from the FOX News transcript:

WILSON: And we had the Congressional Research Office. Just last month, in August, they did a study and indicated that there were no restrictions against providing or not enforceable restrictions for illegal aliens to fully participate in the programs.

HANNITY: All right. Here’s the question because I read the bill, every page of it. And.

WILSON: I did, too.

HANNITY: And I — your interpretation, I agree with Congressional Research Office on immigration. I also believe that they’ve come up with a sneaky way to fund abortions, although they’re denying it. Do you agree with me on abortions and on Medicare cuts?

WILSON: I do. Because — and when you read the bill, it really doesn’t take long, because you can see that you have the health choice administration commissioner. And this commissioner will have czar-like powers and could do virtually anything they wanted to do, including abortion coverage.”

Hmmmm? So immigrants will be able to get free health care because they are not explicitly restricted from the program? Now that’s a bit of a stretch.

Wilson applies the same back-asswards logic to abortion–which is NOT provided for under the provisions of the bill–but will be allowed (Wilson speculates) because the program will have a “czar-like” commissioner who oversees operations.

Question: What large government program does NOT have a commissioner? Do they all have “czar-like” powers or just the ones that Wilson and his insurance-lobby friends oppose?

So, if Wilson believes so strongly that he’s right, why did he apologize to Obama? Either he caved in to the pressure or he’s being insincere? He’s either a coward or a hypocrite. Which is it?

Regrettably, the ongoing Republican meltdown doesn’t end with Wilson’s outburst. It has since spread virus-like to the torrid escapades of California congressman Mike Duvall, the randy graybeard who was caught on tape boasting about his steamy encounters with industry lobbyists.

“She is so hot!”, Duvall moaned as he recounted the story of his spanking sessions with shapely lobbyists in “eye-patch” underwear (whose only interest was to use the arthritic Yorba Linda dinosaur to nuzzle closer to the public trough) Duvall has since stepped down as congressman (while denying all wrongdoing) and has been stripped of his role on the House Ethics Committee, a stinging blow to the family values-espousing conservative.

So far, there’s no proof that the powerful lobbies in Sacramento knew that sexual favors were being traded for votes.

Uh, huh.

The Los Angeles Times summed it up best saying, “Money is at least as powerful a motivator as sex. Someone frequently gets screwed as a result; all too often, it’s the people of California.”

Indeed.

So, Duvall will now join the long caravan of ex-Republican leaders whose wick-dipping shenanigans and duplicity brought their careers to a swift close.

How much longer will the public put up with this nonsense before the party is banned altogether and its leaders are released on a street in Falluja with a sidearm and a week’s worth of C-rations?

Remember when people used to take the Republicans seriously?

Think back to Eisenhower or Goldwater or Reagan. Yes, even the waxy-coiffed “Gipper” was far superior to the present crop of clownshoes conservatives who fill-out the Republican congressional roster. Where do they get these guys? And, how does a legitimate political party deteriorate into a frat-boy rabble of clueless misfits and crackpots so fast?

The truth is, the Republicans are simply a party adrift, lacking both purpose and vision. The main problem is that it is extremely hard to rally support for a platform which includes just two planks; war and tax cuts. That’s just not a winning message. That’s why Republicans are always trying to attach themselves to anti-choice, pro-gun conservatives–to create the impression that they feel passionately about something besides killing and money. But it’s a tough-sell, especially given Bush’s record of doubling the national debt and initiating bloody conflicts from the southern coast of Somalia to the northern tip of Afghanistan–a 12 thousand arc of instability compliments of the GOP.

Republicans have also demonstrated their utter lack of sincerity about their signature moral issue, abortion. Does anyone remember George W. Bush–who controlled both houses of congress– pushing legislation to make abortion illegal?

Of course not. It was all phony posturing. Just like the flap over Obama’s fiscal stimulus is just phony posturing. The Republicans know what happens when businesses and consumers stop spending and the government doesn’t take up the slack; stock markets crash, businesses can’t roll over their debt, bank failures spike, and unemployment skyrockets. They weren’t going to let that happen. The only choice was to pump money into the system via tax cuts, public works programs, state aid and extended unemployment insurance and wait for a rebound. George Bush would have done the same thing, in fact, he did. Bush initiated the first stimulus package, a fact that the Republican “deficit hawks” always fail to mention.

Without stimulus, a recession can turn into a Depression. Hard times can get even harder.

The Republicans have morphed into the party of “No” –not because of their strong convictions and commitment to principle–but because they think it will improve their chances in the mid-term elections. That’s all there is to it. The only thing that matters is regaining power, and that means, making sure that Obama fails. Every shrieking protester at a Town Hall meeting is another triumph for the Republicans; another step-stone back to the White House. This is political opportunism at its worst—pushing the country towards anarchy for political advantage. The Republicans have become a party of thugs.

It would be better for everyone if they rolled up their tent and called it quits. Good riddance.

Survival Values – And a cheer for Joe Wilson!

Yesterday in the grocery store the checker commented on having sold her cell phone. She had to. She could not afford the monthly expense and the phone itself had cost her $250.00. She sold it for $210.00 to a friend with a better paying job, at least for now. The checker, Emily, had had it for 3 weeks.

Tightening the belt is the theme of a rising consciousness around our nation. It is not all bad. The clerk, and many others, are beginning to focus in on what really matters.

Yesterday my email box was filled with comments about the coming address by President Obama to Congress about health care. Driving past the County medical facility I saw the many people waiting there. All looked Hispanic. I sighed. I was born in the middle of the 20th Century and I’ve had my fill of wars and taxes and tickets that never end. I’m tired of feeling trapped by government. Everyone I know feels pretty much the same.

The 20th Century was heady but it was more like a drug than reality.

Sex and power were the aphrodisiacs of the 20th Century. We were seduced by greed, consumed by needs that were seemingly without end. The high is fading now, leaving us with withdrawal pains and increased awareness.

Today as we face the meltdown of the American Empire we have the opportunity to consider what really matters, I know I am. I have grandchildren who are excited about starting school. I want a future for them.

As we peer into the unknown future we should take time to consider the rich potentials that still await us as well as the dangers we must confront without the familiar placebo of government as we knew it in the 20th Century.

Big government, top down structuring, did not work. We will of necessity return to local governance, low in cost and allowing the people to choose.

Big government can’t work. The final test was the 20th Century. Big government was the dumb idea that’s time has gone.

The concept of beta testing, produced by edge technology in the 20th Century, is one we need to take seriously right now. If a policy has not been beta tested DO NOT INSTALL!

Now, we need to consider what once worked for America as we face what more big government and corporations have in store for us and determine how to resist.

Local government, controlled directly by the people, works because the surveillance is built in and costs nothing. The eyes of the people should be enough, if government is local. When you have to sell your ideas to people who know you can’t keep your own grass cut with your own lawn mower it cuts wanna be politicians down to size.

Ideas, especially ideas which reorient ownership of what once belonged to all of us, are dangerous. Someone should have put a warning label on Big Government.

Allowing anyone to patent DNA was dumb idea. Buying and selling water, the oceans, the air we breathe and the land which received our dead. These were dumb ideas. The Inventor made the Earth a Commons, thus negating anyone owning what is needed for us, and all life, to survive.

The number of Seniors now identifying as Democrat is dropping like lead balloons. All of us are worried. Last night a guy from South Carolina spoke out. It resonated. He was rude, rude, rude, and personally I loved it.

Last night no one could get on Joe Wilson’s website. It was jammed. No one wants to be vaccinated so Big Pharm can improve its bottom line.

A big cheer for Joe, the rude guy with the balls. But the issue is larger than any one person – and smaller.

People, not profits, come first. It isn’t ‘stuff’ that matters. It is the things that do not become obsolete. Ever.

The future will be about reinstalling values. Coming generations will refocus. As they do so individuals will connect with each other and the Earth of which we are a part. Not that it will be easy. We all know the months and years to come will be tough. But we shall overcome and we shall survive.

Thanks to Joe for a moment of spontaneous sanity. Go local and stay there.

The ADL’s Hate Crimes Legislation

The Anti-Defamation League boasts that its model hate crimes statute inspired changes to law in 45 states and the District of Columbia. The ADL claimed another victory in July when the U.S. Senate approved a hate crime statute similar to one approved in April by the House of Representatives. The slight differences will be resolved in the fall when President Barack Obama promised he will sign the ADL-crafted legislation into law.

In Congressional testimony on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Attorney General Eric Holder conceded the lack of evidence that hate crimes are not being prosecuted by the states. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposed the legislation, describing ADL’s model statute “a menace to civil liberties.” So what gives here? What, really, is the ADL’s agenda?

ADL was founded in 1913 by B’nai B’rith (“children of the covenant”) to oppose anti-Semitism. According to its website, the ADL now opposes any bias that may “tear at the fabric of our society and fragment communities.” Its model statute includes bias based not just on race, color, religion, national origin and gender but also, with this bill, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.

With each new category, the ranks of potential ADL allies expands. Yet even while mobilizing opposition to anti-Jewish bias, ADL argues that anti-Semitism must also include criticism of Israel.

In describing this sleight-of-hand, Senator Carl Levin explained that the ADL-inspired statute targets “bias-motivated crimes” where there is “evidence of speech, beliefs or expressive conduct.” Where a defendant claims an absence of bias, the House bill allows impeachment of that claim with evidence of “expressions or associations.”

Bias alone is not a federal crime. At least not yet. While free speech is protected (sort of), bias-motivated crimes will soon be authorized for federal prosecution. Americans henceforth had best beware of their speech, beliefs, associations and “expressive conduct.” While there’s no sign as yet of the federal Thought Police, the statute authorizes the hiring of additional personnel to “prevent and respond to alleged violations.”

If a state jury acquits, federal prosecutors can try defendants again for the same offense. While not technically Constitution-prohibited double jeopardy—due to the presence of dual sovereigns (state and federal)—the chilling effect, as intended, is palpable and real.

The Department of Justice can intervene when “necessary to secure substantial justice.” In practical effect, the ADL statute transforms the perception of bias into a “currency” that can be deployed to silence critics of Israel.

The intimidation campaign mounted against University of California professor William Robinson showed the lengths to which the ADL will go to stifle critics even when—as in Gaza—Israeli conduct would be considered racist and imperialist anywhere but in the U.S. [See “Treason in Plain Sight?” and “The ADL Thought Police.”]

With this legislation, critics of the Zionist state (or Zionism) could find themselves victims of an ADL intimidation initiative sold to Congress and the White House as a means to protect victims of prejudice. Declaring in its testimony “we are unimpressed,” the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights warned that the legislation “will do little good and a great deal of harm” under cover of an ADL-lobbied statute that, as the Commission says: “purports to protect civil rights.”

Identity Politics and the ADL

Hate crimes legislation is the latest face on the identity group politics that has fragmented U.S. society since the 1960s. Its roots are found in the “Frankfurt School” of the 1920s, a transnational network of social critics frustrated that class warfare failed to gain global traction after the Russian revolution of 1917. Drawing on the class oppression of Karl Marx and the emotional repression of Sigmund Freud, victim group identity became a means to catalyze social solidarity that—like class identity—would supersede national identity.

As identity politics became a stand-in for class politics, prejudice displaced class as the focal point for reform. With enactment of the ADL’s model statute, reform means federal monitoring of “expressive conduct” backed by the threat of a lengthy prison term.

Over four decades, a failed theory of political alienation was replaced with a psychological theory of social and sexual alienation. As repression shifted from the economy to society and sexuality, a litany of liberation movements emerged. With each new group’s claim of bias, prejudice and repression, the ADL gained more potential recruits for its opposition to “anti-Semitism.”

Out of this fusion of disaffection, activism and academia emerged “Critical Theory” whose goals remain obscure though its advocates spawned “special studies programs” on campuses nationwide: African American, Native American, Latino, Jewish, feminist, gay and so forth. Akin to the endless debate typical of a yeshiva, ceaseless social critique emerged as both means and end while identity group theorizing became a career path for academics.

From this intellectual lineage emerged charges of an “Imperial America” ever eager for another conquest and led by a succession of Oil War fascists in need of sensitivity training. As the ranks of the repressed grew, the commitment to identity groups deepened while allegiance to the U.S.—and to democratic values—began a steady decline

With identity politics came not only a fragmented society but also a fractured national psyche. Rather than devotion to community and country, loyalty shifted to parts less than the whole. Allegiance flowed to like-minded sub-groups that often reflected a shared personal bias. Group-reinforced dedication to that identity bred intolerance and arrogance. Why endure the views of others when you are certain your views are correct?

National self-criticism was catalyzed by a series of confidence-shattering assassinations. Those iconic murders undercut an entire nation’s self-assurance as the American psyche deteriorated into self-doubt and an erosion of faith in self-governance. The loss of a costly and unnecessary war in Southeast Asia further sapped the ‘Can Do’ spirit of a post-WWII populace.

Duplicity, Hate and the Criminal State

Fast-forward four decades and Americans again find themselves waging a costly and unnecessary war induced by false intelligence “fixed” around the expansionist goals of Greater Israel. As the common source of that deception comes clearly into focus, critics of Israel are forced to contend with a federal statute that’s a recipe for repression—traceable to the same source those critics now cite at their peril.

Rather than a campus-by-campus silencing campaign, ADL and affiliates of this covenant can mobilize the Department of Justice to quell criticism nationwide. Or, as stated in the ADL model statute approved by the House: “to prevent and respond to alleged violations.”

Hate has long been a currency used by those who proposed this statute. Many Jews are critical of Israeli policy. Those who dare to speak out are routinely described as “self-hating.” Non-Jewish critics are dismissed by the ADL with one or more toxic smears: anti-Semite, Jew-hater, neo-Nazi or Holocaust-denier—each category deserving of hate.

ADL extremists no more represent the broader Jewish community than Christian Zionists John Hagee and Pat Robertson represent the Christian community or radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr represents the broader Muslim community. Extremism is a trait that merits the hatred of freedom seekers worldwide.

With its deceitful statute, the ADL seeks to induce identity groups to empathize with anti-Semitism while evoking hate to obscure Zionism’s true goals. Much as the politics of class warfare failed to gain traction nine decades ago, the politics of hate will also fail.

With transparency, a long-deceived global public will grasp how Americans were deceived six decades ago by an enclave of religious fanatics they naively sought to befriend and defend only to see their behavior tear at the social fabric and fragment communities.

To betray, you must first befriend. To defraud, you must first create trust. Accountability for this trans-generational duplicity will commence as the ADL’s true motives become transparent and its supporters apparent. The restoration of national security requires that those complicit in this covenant—including cooperative lawmakers and their staffs—are held accountable for their support of this statute.

The Gardner Went Blind

Weeds Took Over The Garden…

“Rescue me and deliver me out of the hand of aliens whose mouths speak deceit and whose right hand is the hand of falsehood.” Psalm 144:11

Warning: This article contains language that may cause strong reactions!

When lies are accepted as fact and national policies aligned with falsehood; when tragic homicidal events are planned as instruments of enslavement and attributed to phantom enemies; when morality is debauched and conflicting cultures thrown together like pit bulls in a dog-fighting ring and heat is turned up under this mixture, a massive explosion seems imminent. Close by shadowy oligarchs wait, impatient to enslave the world.

In the United States the Twenty First Century has brought a pandemic increase in real and potential control over citizens and ominous prospects for the future.

A new lawless brutality has marked the post 9/11 era: the War in Iraq, torture, frivolous imprisonments, murders, propaganda, and tyrannical laws seemed to come about with ever increasing intensity. Division creates weakness and weakness allows outside control. The moneymasters understand and exploit existing antagonisms to their advantage. Neo-Israel has created over 60 years of constant conflict. The United States is being prepared for a similar fate as immigrants from many different cultures have created a potential militant antagonism.

James Petras, a retired university professor, has written an explosive article entitled “The Destruction of a Civilization” revealing the atrocities being inflicted on Iraq during the U.S. occupation. Petras documents the tremendous influence of American Zionist Jews on our Middle Eastern policies and the Stalin-like elimination of dissidents by pitting Shite gunman against Iraqi Christians and other social leaders. The ancient Iraqi Christian population, was displaced, its churches bombed and its leaders, and bishops slain or driven into exile; intellectuals, academics and scientists were assassinated or forced to leave the county. “The US and its Israeli advisers were well aware that Iraqi Christians had played a key role in the historic development of the secular, nationalist, anti-British/anti-monarchist movements and their elimination as an influential force during the first years of US occupation was no accident.”

Petras maintains that1.3 million Iraqi civilians have been eliminated by “Death squads” and through the encouragement of tribal, religious, and ethnic rivalries. This includes the physical elimination of “academics, writers, teachers, intellectuals, scientists and professionals, especially physicians, engineers, lawyers, jurists and journalists”. Also destroyed were cultural entities like “libraries, census bureaus, and repositories of all property and court records, health departments, laboratories, schools, cultural centers, medical facilities and above all the entire scientific-literary-humanistic social scientific class of professionals”.

According to professor Petras, Iraq’s dissidents have been murdered, its foundational institutions destroyed and its culture decimated. The nation has been gutted and is now completely dependent on Western institutions.

Read the entire Petras article here.

Most Americans have accepted bombing civilians as a legitimate form of warfare but few are aware that the hate propaganda emanating from our government translates into atrocious behavior in our soldiers. During World War II Japanese atrocities were loudly publicized but nothing was written about American infractions. It was never acknowledged that U. S. troops were capable of the horrors Laurence Vance lists in a rambling essay entitled “Rethinking the Good War” — “things like the harvesting of gold teeth from dead and not-so-dead Japanese soldiers, boiling the flesh off enemy skulls to make ornaments for military vehicles or to send home as souvenirs, urinating in the mouths of dead Japanese soldiers, carving enemy bones into letter openers, mutilating corpses, attacking and sinking hospital ships, shooting sailors who abandoned ship, shooting pilots who bailed out, killing wounded enemy soldiers on the battlefield, torturing and executing enemy prisoners, massacring unarmed Japanese soldiers who just surrendered, kicking in the teeth of prisoners before or after their execution, and the collecting of Japanese ears “

As Vance points out atrocities were committed by both sides but most Americans have nurtured the thought that the current enemy is the sole source of atrocities. Now it is us, we are the ones who endorse torture and the murder of dissidents. We are the overgrown bully on the block. It is our armies that invade and occupy nations that have done us no harm. Armed with the conclusions of the Project for the New American Century, we have become an incarnation of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao seeking to control the world by armed force. Isn’t it time that information began to sink into the American psyche?

Good soldiers learn to hate the image of the enemy that government propaganda has constructed in their minds. Hate is the foundation on which wars are built.

United States burgeons with professing Christians. Most of them along with their leaders supported President George W. Bush and his invasion of Iraq. They consider themselves patriotic; they support our troops and the imperial intentions of our government. Robert Gipson in an internet response states the problem well, “You’re correct that most ‘mericans don’t care about killing innocent civilians in other countries–en masse. Americans today are a generation of zombies programmatically desensitized to ultraviolence, and adroitly manipulated by government ops like 9/11. And that’s where I differ with you. Our rabidly homicidal ‘leaders’ are not at all concerned with saving ‘merican lives. They’re interested solely in killing more efficiently. They gleefully send thousands of ‘merican troops to die fighting ‘enemies’ that our leaders themselves carefully create and continuously (covertly) arm, like the Taliban. As I write this, they’re deliberately pushing Russia on all sides, trying hard to provoke the nuclear exchange our ‘leaders’ want–which will kill tens of millions of ‘mericans”.

I am constantly bombarded with email messages enjoining me to support and pray for our troops who are fighting for our freedom. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Since President Bush began the second invasion of Iraq in 2003 a myriad of tyrannical laws have been written and enacted. These laws will eventually bring Martial Law and the excuse for our imprisonment will be some form of danger (real or imagined). Our troops are not fighting for our freedom; they are fighting for our captivity!

The Bible does not support imperialism, neither at the national level nor at the individual level. Nowhere are we directed to pray for troops that are engaged in killing innocent civilians at a rate of 10 or more to 1 (ten civilians killed for every soldier) in a nation that never threatened us or meant us harm. Such actions are a travesty and Christians who support them are guilty of the egregious sin that is slowly bringing United States under tyranny. We need to recall all of our soldiers from the Middle East and from over a 100 other nations where they have been stationed since World War II.

Are American Christians and their leaders blind, deaf, and dumb? Why is our industry being moved to Asia? Why has our standard of living been in decline for the past several decades? Who promotes the homosexual abomination and why? Why are our roads full of chuckholes and our hospitals going broke when illegal immigrants get free medical care and billions of dollars are being wasted by illegal wars on foreign shores? Why do East Indians own all of our motels and why are the merchants we buy from becoming so large that they no longer need to talk with us instead referring our inquiries to foreigners whose language we cannot understand? Why is our government giving trillions of dollars to bankers who refuse to be accountable? Does any Christian leader understand that chaos, cognitive dissonance, disagreement, immorality, war, poverty, and pestilence are the tools of revolution and revolution provides the foundation for despots?

One who supports his country in sinful endeavors that bring the wrath of Almighty God down on the entire population does not understand the meaning of love. War is a tool used to bring additional power to government and to the cabal that controls it. Support for this evil manipulation is a hate that plunges the supporter into the domain of the Devil.

God’s people should have been earnestly engaged in defeating national imperialism from the very beginning. Church leaders are vested with responsibility to understand what is going on, comprehend its malignant nature and confront it forcefully from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday. The church is God’s spokesman in His creation. R. J. Rushdoony writes, “If the church is faltering or straying, the preaching is clearly at fault. True preaching cannot leave men unconcerned: it will either arouse them to repentance and to godly action, or it will arouse them to ungodly hostility as they see themselves in the light of God’s Word.”

The Bible does not mince words. Speaking of profligate messengers Isaiah 56 reads “His watchmen are blind they are all without knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark…The shepherds also have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way, each to his own gain, one and all.”

I have frequently written that if a Christian is not experiencing hostility he is not properly expressing the Gospel. Dr. Rushdoony confirms that observation. Our problem seems to be that preachers either fail to discern the reality that surrounds them or are afraid to confront it lest they be mocked. The result is a boring frivolity that is either replaced by useless humanistic emotionalism or a dry rendition of scripture – it is irrelevant and churches are dying because of it. No, our pulpits are not blasphemous they are not preaching lies but the truncated truth they are preaching is useless because it fails to address the salient issues of our day.

How far must we fall before our preachers realize their duty is not to build churches but to support the dominion of God? How long must we endure the pious, holier than thou game that displaces the two edged sword of truth that should be coming from our pulpits? Will we fall into Martial Law and be governed by foreigners, half breeds, homosexuals, women, Pharisaical Jews and parsimonious charlatans – all servants of a conspiratorial cabal? Will that be our fate? It appears it will.

Next Page »