Beyond the Cusp

May 21, 2018

Sometimes Things Just Make Your Head Hurt

Filed under: Israel — qwertster @ 1:02 AM
Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Are people really going to bring back idolizing mass murdering leaders like Joseph Stalin, more affectionately called “Uncle Joe” back in 1940s America? Apparently, they are if we are to believe the story from a Socialists, May Day, International Workers’ Day rally in Trafalgar Square in London. From amongst the parade’s extravaganza of signs, flares and flags, that is the impression we draw and what else could one believe (see images below). There really is not any different conclusion one could reach when viewing the scenes from Trafalgar Square in London. Labour Party supporters left little doubt as to their new heroes, and the direction they hope to take Britain. The May Day, International Workers’ Day rally appeared to be something straight from the Moscow original May Day rallies where people were volunteered to attend and look happy about the state of things. One might say they felt a tinge of nostalgia if it were not for the sickening knot they felt in their gut. Seeing banners of Stalin, huge banners of Stalin on display in London are not a celebration but a foreboding, a warning to all Britain of what is coming if the far left should win an election. This May Day, International Workers’ Day rally should be a wakeup call for every true lover of Britain who desires to try and salvage at least some of the beating heart of a proud nation for them not to allow such leaders to take to the fore in their political arena. Unfortunately, this is likely a muted call which will be drowned out with chants for “Uncle Joe” and his promise of a slice of pie for everyone and free everything off the backs of forced laborers and the return of collectivist farms and famine. Those were the hallmarks of Stalinist Russia and Ukraine, but that is history and nobody cares to learn history any longer.

 

Joseph Stalin Celebrated During May Day, International Workers' Day Rally

Joseph Stalin Celebrated During May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally

 

Marchers at May Day, International Workers' Day Rally Waving the Red Flag Banners

Marchers at May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally Waving the Red Flag Banners

 

Few More Shots of Marchers at May Day, International Workers' Day Rally

Few More Shots of Marchers at May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally

 

One would think that such a march with Stalin brought to the fore would not shock us, after all youth have been wearing “Che” T-shirts thinking they were one of the kewl-people simply for wearing a t-shirt with a mass murderer emblazoned across the front and likely some feely-touchy slogan on the back all about equality, fairness and sharing (see examples below). For those who either do not remember or were never taught the reality behind Che Guevara, he was the executioner for Fidel and Raul Castro who took great pleasure in his assigned position. Che Guevara had received a medical degree in 1953 but after he became radicalized, he found that he preferred taking lives to saving them. He was the hatchet man for more than just Cuba as after he was no longer required in Cuba, Che Guevara assisted with communist uprisings in Congo-Kinshasa and later in Bolivia. It was in Bolivia where CIA backed anti-communists, also known as our butchers by the American government rather than the Soviet’s butchers, where Che was captured and found himself poetically on the other side of a firing squad. Che was born on June 14, 1928, and summarily executed on October 9, 1967, at the age of thirty-nine. Yes, we know he authored books on revolution and social equality and held positions other than official executioner and commander of the firing squads. One description of Che Guevara given by Ronald Radosh, a Hudson Institute adjunct fellow, as stated in “‘Che’ spurs debate, Del Toro walkout” in The Washington Times from January 27, 2009, “He took joy in killing counterrevolutionaries and was one of the most hard-edged, most Stalinist, pro-Soviet communists of the whole leadership.” This was the man seen on campuses across the developed world, image made larger than life and who holds a place of the grandest of illusions that Che was the best of the best and they ignore that this physician preferred killing to healing, that was the real Che Guevara.

 

Various Che T-shirts

Various Che T-shirts

 

Still, communism continues to hold sway and the far leftists always have the same reasoning for their desire to impose extreme socialist governance upon societies which are producing wealth and improving the standard of living over the widest range of the citizenry. But the socialist leftist revolution does not see this, they only see that some have great wealth and for them this is a crime, not an example to emulate. Their reasoning is that they know it has failed every time it has been attempted, but this time it will work as it is supposed to work because this time they are the right people who will make it work. They fail to see the basic problem with the entire formula which has two main problems. The initial problem is once the power structure is in place and they no longer serve any purpose, they will be discarded and if not careful, simply shot as someone who is no longer necessary but insists on continuing the revolution. They do not realize that the revolution is always about changing the people who have great wealth from those who produced items people desired to the leadership of the revolution, usually the top three percent of the revolutionary figures, the rest are executed or escape and live silent and wretched lives on the fringe of the new order. The other mistake is the formula of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” the formulation by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. In such a system, the intelligent choice is to have a great list of what you need and a short to nonexistent list of your abilities. Communism, or any form of extreme socialism, is based on limiting needs while forcing people to work as given the choice people will always have great hopes for realizing their needs but far less enthusiasm for working hard to realize them. Once a small percentage refuses to work but is still permitted to live at an equal level to those who work diligently and with great zeal and effort, soon the zeal wanes, the diligence become slack and effort goes out the window. This formula is doomed to fail as it works against the basic nature of people in a society. This can only function in a small group where everyone knows everyone else and thus slacking is immediately addressed by the whole group. Once the population gets large, there is no mechanism for shaming slackers, thus they begin to increase in numbers.

 

We may as well talk of why capitalism works so much better than socialism. The problem is people are, for the most part, greedy. We do not mean greedy as in avarice, but people want often more than they can reasonably afford. In socialist governance, they simply get on the waiting list and eventually they receive their desired items. Working for these items is not required because there is no connection between desires and work produced. Work is required according to one’s ability, and when one denies having any ability, in a large collective they get to skate. Further, if they are active in the ruling party and go to every party meeting, appear at every rally and show great enthusiasm, despite producing nothing of value, they will be rewarded simply due to their apparent enthusiasm, nothing more. Capitalism works completely differently. Capitalism realizes that people desire goods and services, often beyond their economic standing. Capitalism simply states that you will be rewarded for effort you make in providing something of service to the society. The more valuable your service or goods provided, the higher your reward. Higher reward means more goods and the one with the most toys wins. Greed drives production in capitalism, and that is the secret. Greed, desire for more drives one to produce more in order to be rewarded with more. The desire to acquire more items and live a richer life drives the individual to work harder and smarter. The desires are satisfied directly according to effort, not independent of effort as in socialism where as much as possible is made free for everyone.

 

But people still want something for nothing such as universal healthcare, free college educations, even free jobs created by the government simply to provide everyone with employment, not necessarily productive employment, just employment. When one adds in the fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage for these government jobs, many people making less will be quitting their productive work to apply and receive, automatically, these high paying government busy work jobs. They tried this in Mao Zedong’s China. One of the government jobs was mowing the grass in the capital city of Beijing. Each person was provided a pair of nail scissors and a six-centimeter ruler and was instructed to start at one end of a large multi-acre field of grass and to measure each blade and cut them individually all to two centimeters in height. When they finally weeks later reached the other end, they were returned to the beginning and instructed to perform the same job once more. This job employed one thousand people taking two to three weeks to finish the job once only to repeat their job endlessly.. The same job in a capitalist system would be performed by three or four people within a few hours with lawnmowers, powered clippers and an edging machine. Yes, the capitalist job would also require repeated performance of the tasks every three weeks or once a month as described in the contract. The complaint the socialists have is that capitalism makes for uneven wealth with themselves, the leadership of the political movement in the socialist camp not being the ones with the wealth. It is no accident that after the socialist revolt, the leadership suddenly becomes very wealthy and live lives of excess while those who had produced much to gain wealth are removed from the equation.

 

Joseph Stalin was a case in point. Stalin was a very powerful force for the Communist Revolution which placed Vladimir Lenin in the top position. Lenin was supposed to have asked Leon Trotsky to make sure upon Lenin’s death that Stalin never takes power. Leon Trotsky was a thinker and not a man of action and definitely not a man of violence. Stalin was all those things and Trotsky had to flee but was eventually settled with Stalin as he was murdered in Mexico by a Stalinist agent. Stalin was brutal and when the farmers refused to allow collectivization, Stalin sent the military and secret police to take all their produce for the cities leaving them nothing and starving them into submission. Many farmers continued to resist and were murdered. Soldiers who had fought particularly well in the revolution were rewarded with farms and told to grow crops for the revolution. These soldiers were city dwellers and knew nothing of farming and their lack of yields proved their incompetence. This lack of food production caused famine and in order to feed the cities and prevent another revolution overthrowing Stalin, he used the military and literally stole the produce of the now conquered Ukraine. Children who , out of starvation and depravation, would try to steal into the fields seeking dregs of the harvest were simply shot. The census takers were executed such that it was never to be revealed how many died in the Ukraine. What did Stalin care, these were not real Russians and his real Russians in the cities had to be fed and kept from turning against his governing. Stalin also began to place Russians into the Ukraine so as to keep the area under his control. These Russians were agents of the government and were rewarded with, what else, farmlands for their use. Needless to point out, this led to another famine. Stalin was estimated to have caused the deaths of anywhere from twenty million to sixty million people all included. Stalin was not the worst of the communist killers as that title falls to Mao Zedong whose numbers reach into the hundreds of millions. One telling of the story through essays is the “The Black Book of Communism,” a book contested by those defending Communism. One item many forget is that the Communists are only one side of the far leftist socialism, the International Socialist. There are also the Nationalist Socialists who some insist are right wing. The most deadly examples of these nationalist socialists were the Nazis, which stands for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

 

Europe has been drifting further and deeper into socialist governance with obvious results on the horizon. It is all spelled out in the Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance (see image below). There are those in the United States who also support socialist governance. An example of such a politician would be Bernie Sanders whose platform included national healthcare, fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, free college education, and so much more as listed here. There are those who theorize that Communism could work provided it was applied to a nation which has a universal work ethic. This theory is most often used to claim that socialism would work in the United States simply because of the work ethic. It is believed that these efforts would continue unabated into the future. Where such a supposition might well hold its validity for those working at the time of the imposition of socialist governance, there is no promise it would continue into the following generations. The United States is already witnessing the youth expectations for a ready job waiting for them as soon as they receive their degree. Many have bought the idea that raising the minimum wage by almost doubling it would reduce poverty. In actuality it would increase poverty, cutting the numbers of minimum wage jobs by at least half if not much greater. Other results of such an increase would include many small businesses closing, automation wherever possible, a rush to produce AI humanoid robotic units, many workers who had pushed their performance simply to get a raise and a promotion now finding themselves back at minimum wage would be disheartened, the entire system would become broken, and lastly and the most oppressive result would be a general doubling of all prices as massive inflation would adjust everything to be in the same proportionality to the minimum wage, just adjusted for this level. Raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour would not produce any advantages, as within a year all prices would have reestablished their relative position to the minimum wage. For an example, let us assume that a fast food meal cost three times the hourly minimum wage, which with the minimum wage at $7.85 setting the meal price of $23.55. Now we increase the minimum wage to $15.00, what would you assume would happen to that cost for the meal? Initially it would remain the same but would very soon start to work its way up and up to $33.00 and then $40.00 and finally coming to rest at $45.00 if not slightly higher. So, within a year the average minimum wage paycheck would be worth exactly the same amount of money, but the people who own the businesses or have stocks in the large companies and especially those who own land and properties, these people would see a huge increase in their wealth and the end result would be an even larger abyss, a real chasm, separating the have’s from the have-not’s.

 

Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance

Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance

 

Should communism come to the United States through elections and the slow creeping socialism eventually overtake everything else, the same people will be in charge and giving the orders to the same people doing the work. The problem is with a higher minimum wage and free healthcare, college and all the other government giveaways, taxes would be raised on the working Americans resulting in even more being forced from the workforce as businesses tightened their belts and steeled up against the coming storms. In the end you would have approximately half the population not being productive yet receiving full benefits and the half that are working, many will not be putting their best foot forward after witnessing others getting their toes cut off for their efforts. Once the people feel the full effect of government removing the rewards for hard work and simply giving the exact same result to those putting forth no effort, that is when the workforce walks away from their jobs and the system once again will fail. This is what we can expect should the far leftists get their dream candidates into the White House. Should we assume that President Trump will be reelected and his Vice President wins a term, then it will take at least two and probably three Presidential terms for the leftists to turn everything around. The problem is after elected the same candidate twice to the Office of the Presidency, they would very likely declare themselves to be the Leader of the Revolution and President for Life. The highest officers in the military would already have been weeded with the conservative core removed and preening pretenders promoted in their place. These leftists already have pretty much a chokehold on the major cities which they regard as their own voting machines to wield as they see fit. They have taken over almost every school board and have control over the curriculums of their schools which currently produce Democrats sold on the idea of the socialist collective mentality where everything is produced by a committee where two or three people out of twenty perform all the work but everyone shares the glory. Perhaps the brakes will be applied in time, but eventually this will be the future. As we stated above and depicted, it is simply the way the wheel turns in the Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance, and there is no getting around this cycle by going the other way, that has been the proof of history. It is all very sad but true and so unfortunate. It is a result of urbanization as people residing in rural areas learn to do for themselves while those in the urban jungle learn to call a specialist. The differences are stark and spell the difference between dependence and liberty, serfdom and freedom, fear and courage, and finally living in a society best defined by some deformed and maladjusted confluence of George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” described musically by Steppenwolf’s song “Monster” as compared against the Bible and Plato’s Republic with the spirit of Charlie Daniels’ song “In America” describing an alternative. Socialism becomes slavery while capitalism encourages innovations. Innovations are the necessity of a healthy economic base and without innovation, a society faces stagnation, an evil which impairs progress and curtails all hopes for a better tomorrow.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

January 22, 2018

Current Assessments of Arab-Israeli Conflict Unhelpful

 

There are a number of glaring false assumptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict which serve only to minimize the antipathy felt by the aggressor which began the conflict and set it in motion for perpetuity. The most easily identified errors are that the conflict began in 1948 with the founding of the state of Israel, that the conflict is one-hundred years old, that the disagreement is over borders, that Jerusalem is a central core of the problem and a dozen other such falsities. This war started at the oasis of Khaybar outside Medina. For close to a thousand years Jews lived in the oases of Teyma, Khaybar, and Yathrib peaceably with the surrounding communities, both idolatrous and the growing Islamic community in Medina. There was one area of contention between the Jewish communities and Muhammad, the Jews refused to convert and refused to accept him as the final prophet holding to the historic Jewish belief that the period of the Prophets was long ended. In the year 628-9 A.D., Muhammad gathered his forces and invaded the Jewish community at the Oasis of Khaybar defeating them. In less than a decade, the Islamic forces had defeated all of the separate Jewish communities driving them from the area. It is partially because these were the first groups with whom Muhammad warred or due to the stiff resistance and lack of trust as treaties were disregarded when they were considered inconvenient and no longer to one’s advantage that a great animosity was built between the Jews and Muslims that the Jews are chosen for a particular hatred by Islam. Consider the example of the Qurayza Tribe of Jews, who were defeated by Muhammad despite their leader opting to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. Their sin was not joining the fight to defend Muhammad and his fellow caravan raiders who were within their town. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet still Muhammad had every male member of the Qurayza Tribe beheaded. The wars between the Muslims and their continued history of periodic particularly harsh treatment of Jews emanate from these battles.

 

Further, the Quran even states, in Sahih Bukhari 52:177, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” This requires the followers of Islam to war against the Jews, some now interpret this to mean defeating Israel, before their end-times can commence or at least have its time set. This adds to their reasons to fight against Jews which now means Israel. Additionally there are the two spheres which the world is divided among in Islam, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam is the House of Islam, the area under Islamic rule and thus considered to be at peace; and Dar el Harb being the House of War which includes all lands with which Islam is at war that includes everything outside Dar al-Islam, simply put, everywhere else. Another point is that once Islam conquers any territory, it is to then remain under Islamic dominance forever and should Islamic territory be lost, even or especially were it to revert to previous (infidel) ownership thus falling outside Islam, that becomes a mortal affront to the supremacy of Islam. Hamas has in their preamble to the Hamas Charter a quote from their founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Obviously, throughout history at numerous times the Jews and even Israel was an area of supreme importance and considered to be the ultimate threat facing Islam. But then, we would simply ask ourselves, why should Islam be any different from everyone else. Before you get up and demand what we mean by everyone else, let us give a partial list of everyone else throughout history; the Pharos’s Egypt, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Roman Empire, Byzantines, Islamic Caliphate, Crusaders, English Empire, Rome’s Inquisition, Spanish Empire, Nazis, Communists and others.

 

In all honesty, we are not claiming by any stretch of the imagination that Israel’s only difficulty is with Islam as there are a plethora of others who would love for Israel to disappear. Many groups outside the Arab and Muslim worlds would also be happy for Israel to disappear. We also need to point out not all of the Arab and Muslim worlds actively want to destroy Israel. One of the main forces which in ambivalent at best and animosity at the worst we have Rome, Vatican City to be more precise where the Catholic Church has a long history of following Replacement Theology which turned the Jews from the Chosen People into the Cursed People. Much of Replacement Theology is based upon the Jewish People being dispersed and denied any return to the Holy Lands. The fact that Israel had been destroyed and the Jews apparently thrown from their homelands was all the proof that the Christians, or in this case the Catholic Church, had replaced the Jews as the Chosen People and the Jews cursed. Then we come to Martin Luther who carries Replacement Theology one-step further and claiming that the Catholic Church has sold their souls and were to join the Jews as cursed and his church was the replacement and true faith. This idea of Replacement Theology continued being used by each Protestant Church during the Reformation. The Church of England, Episcopal Church, also took the position of being the singular holy church for the British Isles which led to years of fighting between the Catholics and the Anglicans. Every step along the way, Replacement Theology was utilized by each Protestant Church founder claimed to have the rights to the title of the Chosen People and all previous forms of Christianity and the Jews now being the cursed people. Islam was no exception as when Muhammad came forth with Islam, he declared that he was presenting the final incarnation of Allah’s word and Islam would be the last and only Chosen People as they replaced all the various Christian faiths and especially the Jews, just as the Christians had denoted the Jews.

 

Refuting the Lie of Replacement Theology

 

Along with each religion, the nation which adopted these various sects of Christianity, the different forms of Islam and the anti-religion Communism all declared their animosity against the Jews. When Israel was reformed by David Ben Gurion declaring Israel founded, all the aforementioned religions had a total conniption-fit expressing their protestation in various means. Most Christian faiths declared this not to be the real return of the Jews and in no way made them once again the Chosen People with the Catholic Church even declaring Israel as an abomination while much of the Islamic world and the Arab League declared total genocidal war of cleansing of the Zionist Entity. The thing which is interesting is how the Arab Islamic worlds ignore the reestablishment of the Jewish homelands of Israel by referring to Israel as the Zionist entity such that they can claim that this is not the reestablished Jewish or Israelite homelands. This is also why they also claim that the Jews of today are not related to the Jews from antiquity despite genetic proof of their having Middle Eastern DNA markers and many families have traceable histories back many centuries even beyond one millennium. They even doubt those Jewish families who have never left Jerusalem except temporarily after Christian and Islamic expulsions always to return as soon as they were able.

 

What makes much of the efforts in the modern era since 1948 to solve the various forms it has taken adjusting to changing conditions and models presented is that they take that the entirety of the problem either began in 1948 with the founding of Israel, it started with the treaties and conferences after World War I or it began with the onset of modern Zionism. These are all completely wrong, as Islam had been at active war with the Jews throughout their history at various levels. People will point to periods where Jews thrived under Islamic rulers but most of these rulers did not follow strict Sharia, the Quranic defined statutes of law. The other difficulty is that despite periods where Jews were treated fairly well, these were always limited periods similar to the periods under European rule in the various nations where Jews were accepted for periods always eventually to come under critical treatment and even actively murdered often by burning at the stake, hanging, boiled in oil and the many various tortures of the Inquisitions. Islam began with mistreatment of the Jews either demanding the Jizya, a special tax levied against non-Muslims for the privilege and protection living under Islamic rule. This tax varied depending on the requirements of the governance, the greater their need the greater the Jizya often leading to a condition which becomes unlivable. This war against the Jews began, as we pointed out at the beginning, in the year 628-9 A.D. and continued, as has the Christian warfare against the Jews, intermittently ever since or as the anti-religious forces of Communism and Nazism have constantly since their inception.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

April 1, 2017

What Good is Bipartisanship if One Side Supports Your Demise?

 

The AIPAC convention ended last week and the eighteen-thousand plus attendees returned home hopefully more invigorated, excited and informed about Israel, the challenges facing the Jewish State and the means by which they can best support the State of Israel. Unfortunately that may not be the case. One of the goals of AIPAC over the years has been to continue to be nonpartisan leading to bipartisan support for Israel. This has worked admirably well since 1967 when the United States took an interest in pursuing an actively supportive roll with Israel yet still continued its arms embargo which had been in effect almost immediately after granting Israel recognition in May of 1948 until 1968 when, with strong support from Congress, President Lyndon Baines Johnson approved the sale of Phantom fighters to Israel, establishing the precedent for US support for Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors. This has little effect though on American support for the militaries of several allied Arab nations who potentially could have been Israeli enemies in future hostilities. Since 1968 Israel had received bipartisan support with politicians from both sides of the aisle in the Congress acting and voting favorably in matters concerning Israel. There have been some individual actions which placed this support into something conditional on Israel committing herself in a manner which the United States required for their support.

 

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu when Addressing AIPAC

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu when Addressing AIPAC

 

The most famous came during the Yom Kippur War when President Nixon, under urging and pressure from Secretary of State Kissinger claiming that this action would force the Israelis to be more malleable and easily controlled, initially denied resupply of desperately needed armaments by the Israeli Defense Forces. When Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir called President Nixon and informed him that Israel without resupply might necessarily have to fall onto the Samson Option, a suspected but never actually defined last ditch effort if facing being overrun, expressed the desperate need that President Nixon released the needed armaments. This led to another problem as numerous European nations refused United States requests to allow the resupply planes landing and refueling rights as they also were refusing to assist Israel and were refusing to assist the United States in assisting Israel. Still, the planes did get through and Israel survived the surprise attack on Yom Kippur which almost resulted in an Israeli defeat. It need be pointed out that one Israeli defeat and there will be no Israel and the resulting toll of Jewish deaths would be unprecedented as today there are over six-million Jews living in Israel. There were rumors that another reason Nixon sent the arms was that Israel had opened the silo covers from their missiles and this was picked up by a geosynchronous spy satellite stationed over the war zone, otherwise meaning over Israel as she was attacked by Egypt and Syria with additional support by expeditionary forces from Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cuba, and Morocco and additional air support from Libya as well as a North Korean deployed MiG-21 squadron to Bir Arida to protect Egypt’s south.

 

IDF Air Force Phantom II F-4E

IDF Air Force Phantom II F-4E

 

Israel continued to receive bipartisan support from the Congress and a good amount of such remains to this day. There have been times when the Republicans wavered especially during the late 1980’s and into much of the 1990’s as a response to tepid at best Jewish support for Republicans. With the rise of the Evangelical Christian support for Israel, the Republican support has returned to a robust level. The weakening support currently lies with the Democrats who have come to figure basically who are the Jews going to support as the vast majority of American Jews are liberal to far leftists. There are exceptions mostly amongst the Orthodox and religious Zionist Jews who are supportive of the Republicans. So the Democrats simply take their seventy-five plus percent support by the Jews as a given for which they actually need not support Israel and these Jews will continue to support them. This is further proven by the wavering of Leftist Jews in their support for Israel, many have actively become supporters of the Palestinians at the cost of Israel. They have come to view Israel to be a right wing governed stronghold and are against Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett, the Justice Minister and second chair in Jewish Home Ayelet Shaked as well as the remainder of the Likud Party, the religious parties and the Zionist parties as opposed to their preferred solution of removing all Jews from Judea and Samaria as well as much of Jerusalem and giving all this for a Palestinian Arab state and not necessarily an unarmed Arab State. They view Israel as too religious, too Jewish and Torah observant and are extremely disgruntled over Israeli insistence on recognizing Torah observant Jewishness and not accepting Reform, Reconstructionist, Alternative Orthodox and some Conservative Rabbis’ conversions because they do not meet the more stringent Israeli requirements for conversions within Israel. These Jews have decided if Israel refuses to allow American Jews to dictate policy and what government they can have, then they refuse to support these ungrateful Israeli Jews; sad but it is true.

 

This wavering by the Democrat Party in many instances not being supportive of the Israeli government and the lack of support from a large segment of Jewish Democrats, there are some who question if this bipartisanship is working. This came particularly to the fore when President Obama challenged AIPAC and demanded they choose between the Israeli position and that of the Obama Administration pushing that support for Israel could hinge on their accepting the President’s position on the solution which favored the Palestinian Arab position and placed all the onus on Israel to bend over backwards and make all the concessions receiving nothing in return. AIPAC buckled to the pressure from the White House and in the process sacrificed their Zionist beliefs placing them on the altar of political correctness and then making a fire sacrifice burning them up as the President demanded. It was a sad thing to watch and to behold what was pledged to be a pro-Israel group turns on their pledges to Israel in the name of bipartisanship as they feared losing Democrat support. One could ask is Democrat support actually necessary if it requires forsaking your guiding principles? That is where the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) and its President, Morton A. Klein, did Israel and Zionism proud when the ZOA faced similar pressures and simply stood as Zionist and let the consequences be what they may. Sometimes this is what supporting a cause requires, stating your principles and standing by them as without a principled core, what does an organization have to show, bipartisanship without a core, that is meaningless.

 

Zionist Organization of America President Morton A. Klein

Zionist Organization of America President Morton A. Klein

 

AIPAC will soon face a crisis and it is rushing towards them as if it were a runaway train without any brakes or anyone in the cab. The leftists and liberals, especially those in the Democrat Party, are going to press for AIPAC to stand with them against President Trump and his Administration with their Israeli policies. This will be a do or die decision for the leadership in AIPAC. The Democrats are basically going to give them an, either you are with us or against us, proposition. This will put bipartisanship completely out of the equation as they will be facing a choice as to which side they are going to support, President Trump and Israel or the Democrat Party, its leftists who have run off with the party and the Palestinian Arabs. This will be a one or the other and as the vast majority of Jews currently are Democrats, this will be an even more difficult choice as much of their finances come from these Jews and their support for many will hinge on AIPAC’s choice. The true Zionists who still remain in the Democrat Party, likely because their Congressperson still supports Israel and they refuse to see the truth of the heart of the part having turned against Israel, will remain loyal to AIPAC no matter which way they decide. What is actually in the balance will be possibly the depth of Trump and his Administration to their pledged support for Israel. After all, if AIPAC stands against what President Trump and his people are hoping to accomplish vis-à-vis Israel, would that not point to the fact that maybe they are going about things all wrong? AIPAC represents presumably the pro-Israel position and if they are opposing your actions, well, what does that say. Additionally, what kind of signals are sent when the two presumably most pro-Israel groups stand in opposition to one another with ZOA supporting Trump and all he is attempting to accomplish while AIPAC stand in opposition. We will see what happens but there is one last warning we must present AIPAC with, this is one decision that not deciding is deciding because as far as these leftist Democrats and their Jewish compatriots, either you are actively with them or you are their enemy, there are no half measures and no bipartisan positions, you have to choose or they will choose for you. Further, even if you choose and even one of your ranking members steps out of the strict lines these people will place around you, then you will be called to answer because they will not couch any discrepancies from their approved positions. Once in, you have to be all the way in and no hedging your position or backtracking will be permitted and anyone dissenting in the slightest will, you will be demanded to reprimand and depart their company.

 

Some final thoughts on this subject as a whole and independent of any AIPAC, ZOA or other political actions type lobbying groups. The far left has made their choice. They have decided, as they historically always have, that they want an end to the Judeo-Christian ethic and what Hitler referred to as the Jew Conscience and Jew Morality which he promised to free the world from. This is why initially, before Germany declared war on the United States, people like Charles Lindbergh, William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, Allen Dulles as well as Vice President of General Motors Graeme K. Howard supported Adolf Hitler as well as Generalissimo Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini as it appeared that their fascist methods were working extremely well for business and manufacturing. What they may or may not have known was that much of the success was making the tools and weapons of war which became evident later in the 1930’s as World War II started. When this resolute means for ridding society and the governance of Judeo-Christian ties, their next great love affair was with the Communists. Interestingly enough the Communists also were promising an end to the Judeo-Christian ethic and the strangling influence it had on their plans. The leftists have always been kindly favorable of hedonism which runs afoul of the Judeo-Christian lifestyle of staunch conservatism and a religious and proper restriction on one’s personal actions. The Communists also failed to rid the world, especially the West, of the Judeo-Christian ethos and it too fell by the wayside. Well, not to be left without a champion who can rid them of the Judeo-Christian ethos; the leftists of today have allied with Islam. They are of the belief that once Islam has rid the world of Judeo-Christianity as a driving force and has put in place a dictatorial governance, another item the leftists find attractive and also another reason they loved Fascism and Communist and their centralized power in the government, the leftists reason that they can simply take control of the levers of power and transform Islam to fit their ideal and ideas. They believe that their “superior education” and “superior experience in governance” and their “general superiority in all things” will allow them to simply transform Islam into adopting their leftist principles and morals (or lack thereof) thus finally establishing their new world order. What they are missing in their plan is exactly how they will take over Islam and change a religion and its principles and strict moral code which have resisted change for much of its fourteen hundred years of existence. Granted that Islam had a period where it had settled from constant war and conquest and was quite agreeable and accepting of non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians. There was the Golden Age of Islam (725 – 1260 approx.) where a liberated view of Islam permitted a pluralistic society and free exchange of information and a general acceptance of science and knowledge from outside of the Quran. This liberalism and the permitting of extra-Quranic knowledge came crashing to an end with two distinct and distant events. The first was the arrival of the Mongols from the east and the final was the rise of the Spanish under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella and the purification of Spain. With the military defeats came the belief that Islam must return to the very roots which carried it forth originally from the Arabian Peninsula and a strict following of the teachings of Muhammad as portrayed in the Quranic texts and the Hadiths. This has continued ever since with the repeated expectation that this solution will work, Allah willing. They may finally be correct as Europe is being gifted to the purveyors of Islam on a golden platter. The leftists will allow the invasion and conquest without use of actual military but simply by replacement and superiority of numbers. The unfortunate thing for the Europeans will be that the Muslims may prove to be impatient and resort to civil warfare to speed the process rather than waiting for the inevitable to simply occur. This may prove to be their undoing as it may awaken the entirety of Europe before the Muslims have sufficient numbers to win outright and thus lead to a horrific conflict as Europe either saves itself from Islam and rediscovers having children in the process or Islam succeeds in speeding the process and the infidel are purged in the process. Either resolution will not benefit the leftists as their plan is extremely flawed for any number of reasons, but that has always been the case.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.