Yaacov Ben Moshe examines the question of Israel’s will to survive. It’s a trait that’s not entirely evident these days.
My last post spoke to the way in which Israel’s public image has become compromised by the media’s constant compromise with evil. The mainstream media is, at this point, paralyzed by the, vertebra-popping, ligament snapping contortions it has put itself through to convince itself it is being “fair” when what has actually been needed was not fairness but honesty and accuracy. Fairness, as practiced by the media (as I show in that post) is neither honest nor accurate but a delusional attempt never to offend the most easily offended party even as it cares nothing about offending the most open and least easily offended party.
Is it not possible that the malaise of the Israelis is a product of the same process on a cultural scale? As Neville Chamberlain proved for all time, appeasement and compromise with evil is not prudent, it is wasteful and stupid. But, even worse than that, it is debilitating to the compromiser. It literally compromises his legitimate defense mechanisms and disarms his ability to act.
[…]
Could Olmert, Livni and their government possibly still have a forlorn hope of convincing the Arabs that Israel has the right to exist? In the entire history of the planet earth, rights without the exercise (not just the possession) of power has never availed anything for anyone. For a Jew, of all the perpetual victims, to think he will be the first case, is lunacy. Buy a history book. Look it up on the Internet. Ask any Arab.
Are they afraid of getting the Caliphateist Arabs (the world’s frothiest collection of rage-oholics) angry? Are they afraid of making refugees out of a people that has held that title as a holy sinecure for sixty years? The so called Palestinians are the most murderous, longest suffering, loudest complaining, least productive and most resistant to resettlement refugees ever. It would, perhaps, be more accurate to call them “aggressfugees”.
RTWT.
An addendum: A “Westernist” orientation would obviously recognize the integral impact of JudeoChristian thought on the development of Westernism. As such, there is no cause for concern that this way of thinking would in any way reject or discriminate against those religions. Quite the contrary, it would elevate them above the others. It’s part of what made this land.
Those who come here would have to accept that.
When we say “One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All”, we are not talking about Allah.
I wrote, “The new religious faith of the West is the deification of the individual who is in possession of unlimited rights: arguably, this is worse than priest ridden. It’s also made us infantile and soft. Try fighting a determined and ruthless enemy when people would rather sleep in.”
Getting rid of multiculturalism won’t get rid of this. Any ideas?
Lori>
A well made point, and I understand your sentiments perfectly.
Unfortunately even if true (Islam won’t last theory) I don’t want to see western culture suffer the “30 million killed” in Stalinist Russia to wait it out, we need to learn from history and not repeat its mistakes. As a civil people we stop totalitarian regimes before they are unstoppable and we cleanse our societies of their rot.
I think we’re all on the same page here. Nobody in their right mind wants war. However, we in the west must have the courage of our convictions, without compromise. In other words, for a start, insisting that Islamic countries accept the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would be a move forward. This, as opposed to allowing them their so-called and counterfeit Declaration of Islamic Human Rights, that is very clearly subordinated to Shariah, as an equal and binding agreement.
There are many ways forward that can preclude violence, if we have the courage of our convictions. If we trust that rational thought trumps emotion, that historical fact trumps feelings, if we know that our culture is proven far superior to theirs and if we will not allow our culture to be subverted and trampled by adherents of an evil and primitive ideology – they will have no recourse.
Irwin Daisy: “If we trust that rational thought trumps emotion, that historical fact trumps feelings, if we know that our culture is proven far superior to theirs and if we will not allow our culture to be subverted and trampled by adherents of an evil and primitive ideology – they will have no recourse.”
AMEN!
lookout>
“Getting rid of multiculturalism won’t get rid of this. Any ideas?”
I view multiculturalism as a much different problem that Islam itself (a very direct threat).
I believe multiculturalism is only promoting microcosms within western societies and all the problems of each nation and country into ours. Not strengths but problems. We already have strengths and something to offer, most of these other cultures do not. That’s not a racist comment, I have no issues with a melting pot if it could work, but human nature as a whole will always override happy feelings of a rainbow world.
I like other cultures their fun and less boring than ours most of the time, but it doesn’t mean they are better nor does it mean ours is worthy of extinction. I prefer to visit other cultures in their own countries, which I do frequently and quite enjoy. I welcome them to visit ours and everyone has a place and gets along.
Lookout: The new religious faith of the West is the deification of the individual who is in possession of unlimited rights: arguably, this is worse than priest ridden. It’s also made us infantile and soft. Try fighting a determined and ruthless enemy when people would rather sleep in.
Getting rid of multiculturalism won’t get rid of this. Any ideas?
________________
OK, I confess that’s a tough one. I have no facile answer there. The hard answer comes somewhere in the notion that rights are proportional to responsiblity and duties.
Robert Heinlein had something along those lines in his Starship Troopers book. That “Citizenship” was not an automatic right given by birth, but had to be earned by deeds – in his case military or civic, but not necessarily so. I am not advocating anything like that, as it would be too radical a departure, but there is a lot that is appealing about that notion.
How to make it workable in our society without becoming callous, it hard. I think we can all agree that the balance has swung wildly too far towards the nanny state. But what is the proper level? I can’t say.
Certainly people are less likely to sleep in and avoid work if they don’t get 1000 dollars a month and government subsidized rent. I recall a friend, a physician, telling me that in Ontario when Harris cut welfare payments by 10-40%, the number of able bodied people coming to her office to fill out welfare forms for minor ailments dropped spectacularly, and the number of people who suddenly could afford medications because their (newly found) employer had a healthy plan increased markedly.
I can think of a dozen little ways in which people are subtly encouraged to be lazy and avoid responsibility for their lives by our nanny state, but to address them all as part of a unified philosophical framework seems rather challenging.
Does that make any sense?
It may only be the conspiracy theorist in me but the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama is 49% white, 44.75% arab and only 6.25% black scares the crap outta me. he’s an arab-american not a black-american. Think America is ready for her first ex-Muslim Arab-American president?
Lori, I like the idea of a “Westernist” orientation–over the multi-culti farrago we now have in Europe and North America–with Judeo-Christian fundamentals intact, appreciated, and protected–but I’m not sure this isn’t a lovely fairytale, to avoid confrontation, something North American softness seems to want to avoid at all costs–even the cost to our freedoms and, as they say in the U.S., “inalienable rights.”
Along with lookout, I can’t see how, with our present politicians, MSM, and academia in the West, we can stuff the multi-culti Genie back into the bottle and elevate a “Westernist” (Judeo-Christian) perspective, given that this perspective has been trashed for the past 30 or 40 years, with most of our young people having been totally brainwashed to the soft, lib-left, equivalency perspective of the world.
I’m not sure how we can avoid a confrontation with the Jihadists. I don’t want it to be a barbaric confrontation–although the Jihadists have already proven that barbarity is not off-limits for them–but I suspect it will, by necessity, because of the Jihdists’ own tactics, be an unpleasant and sacrificial kind of contretemps.
I wish this wasn’t so. Instinctually, North Americans know that winning against the enemy we are confronting will probably necessitate genuine fighting–and so they retreat into denial because with no philosophy/faith that tells them there are things worth fighting and dying for, any kind of “war” seems inconceivable.
I wish that a fighting war were inconceivable but I can’t quite see forward to how, as you hope, Lori, “Islam will fade into insignificance in 50 to 100 years.” Who will convince the West to stop propping Islam up both financially and socially, and who will put an end to the West’s “morally ambivalent internal politics”?
Irwin Daisy: If we trust that rational thought trumps emotion, that historical fact trumps feelings, if we know that our culture is proven far superior to theirs and if we will not allow our culture to be subverted and trampled by adherents of an evil and primitive ideology – they will have no recourse.
Lori: AMEN! (which means “so be it”)
I find Irwin Daisy’s recipe most compelling. Well, as far as the IDEA goes, I’ll say Amen too.
But, as a society catechised in the faith of the individual as his/her own god, bewitched by the bread and circuses offered by a decrepit elite, is it realistic to think that we, as a society, really “trust in” the four very fine things ID posits? The facts would seem to demonstrate that we believe in no such things. As things stand, the enemy seems to have all kinds of recourse . . .
Lori, I appreciate your response @ 8:20. My sleeping in metaphor matches batb’s idea of softness and denial, when what’s really needed is serious work and sacrifice (what’s THAT?!).
As I see it, the enemy’s already within the ramparts. To survive, we have no choice but to fight. The longer we allow the ideological and political triumph of Islam–multiculturalism is a major weapon–right under our noses, the more likely it is that we’ll end up literally bloodied.
It’s our choice: the longer we wait and pretend things aren’t so bad, the more we’re going to suffer.
kelly,
It would if America was an undemocratic dictatorship. Thankfully, it is not. However, your comments are quite correct, and in the midst of Obamamania, unaddressed. Race, religion and with it, questionable allegiance, is the card that he’s playing and should be judged by. That, and the little problem of his absolute lack of experience, especially in harrowing times.
Lori>
“That “Citizenship” was not an automatic right given by birth, but had to be earned by deeds”.
Bingo! I’m always amazed watching television footage of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan; you never see a black face amongst the troops. I’m sure there probably are some colored people in our military, but they certainly aren’t front and center for the cameras. That says allot because even if there were only a few we know that CBC would broadcast the fact to the world and give the appearance that only people of color fight for and defend Canada. We know that to be the case because they would be global media stars.
The point is we know that nowhere near the percentage of modern immigrants coming to Canada are actually willing to fight and die for it. It’s simply a free meal on the liberal’s behalf at the easiest bed and breakfast in town on our dime. They select countries nowadays like looking at a menu in a restaurant, depends on your particular taste and what social benefits are offered.
Kelly. The percentage of Obama’s make up is of no interest to me.
What disturbs me about Obama is his lack of record of substantive accomplishment, as well as his voting record (which is too left wing for me) as well as the impression that his presidency will do more for advancing the nanny state than any president ever has.
It also disturbs me that he seems to be in with a personal crowd of people (his wife the “never proud of America” lady, and his “mentor” the hater) which have seriously wrong ideas. He cannot help but be influenced by these people.
Finally, he is only 46. That’s too young. I know that I learn more about life and the the world and how things work every year. He cannot possibly have enough life experience at this age.
irwin daisy, that and the little problem about lying through his teeth about being black, lying about his father. He’s a liar and a Muslim (no such thing as an ex-Muslim), that scares me.
Lookout,
Make no mistake, I do believe that this particular war, more so than others, is overtly spiritual. And that this un-pc aspect is a vitally important dimension in mankinds reality, as usual, whether ‘moderns’ will recognize it or not.
This is the factor that atheists, like ET, abhor. Yet, her theories remain wildly more faith based. But faith in what?
kelly,
You’re wrong. Check the ex-Muslims, such as Hirsi Ali, as well as the various support organisations.
Obama, I don’t know. He did recently say that there’s no prettier sound than the Muslim call to prayer. The prayer where they curse all non-Muslims 5 times a day.
irwin daisy, I appreciate your last remark. Yes, re the West, faith in what?
most ex-muslims have large security requirements
irwin daisy>
“This is the factor that atheists, like ET, abhor. Yet, her theories remain wildly more faith based. But faith in what?”
There is allot to be appreciative of in the west and faith can come in many forms aside from material goods or conventional religion or a prescribed deity by man.
Faith in yourself
Faith in your family
Faith in your community
Faith in your county
Faith in nature
Faith in science
Faith in progress
Faith in humanity
Faith in life
Faith in procreation
Faith in evolution
Faith in the fact that this list is endless…………..
Not to evolve off the original thread topic but the question was raised.
By the by I’m not an atheist but rather agnostic.
Having faith in a certain religion does not make anyone superior or have any inner knowing. Otherwise we would all believe exactly the same way.
Since that last comment was a thread stopper. Let me make a few more comments because I have a wide blank canvass to comment on now!
Ask yourself folks, why is it so important to have a god?
The Universe exists already you know as a fact. What kind of reward in death are you looking for?
Seriously 73 virgins and a handful of a few perils is that your answer to heaven?
By god the insanity is unbearable………….
Where were you when Columbus discovered America? Well my friends that is exactly where you will be100 years from now. What’s to fear? Nothing at all simply feel the peace and know right from wrong and you will be remembered by someone.
What the hell more could you want, have a nice life.
Knight 99: There are a great many anomolies and internal contradictions in what you have just written–but this is neither the time nor the place to argue them!
To return to the original point of this thread, these thoughts from Yaacov ben Moshe on compromise are bracing:
“Israel must stop compromising, if not for her immediate survival but for the hearts and minds of her people. If they continue to be forced to live under the threat of evil and (perversity of perversities) be reviled by much of the world including many leftist within Israel as the evil ones, is that not the ultimate compromise with evil? Let us say, “No more Compromise!” Turn off the power. Close the borders. For God’s sake shoot back!…
…”Israel is still a democracy but the government of the moment is self-destructive to the point of suicide. If the people do not shake off the deadly effects of compromise and insist on a new civilian leader to replace Olmert and jolt Israel out of her paralysis, the confined and frustrated military might at some point elect to save the country on their own authority- A latter day Saul or David may arise. I pray that this is not necessary. It is not a good prospect but it is preferable to annihilation. It is not too late- YET.”
It’s clear, in Yaacov ben Moshe’s mind, that in order to survive, compromise and passivity are not options for Israel, and I’m with his thinking when it comes to Israel, Europe, and North America. It’s too bad our Tokyo Roses in the media are such cowardly laggards.
Is it a coincidence that from countless studies done on the character profiles of Western journalists, @ 80% of them attend neither Jewish Synagogue nor Christian Church on a regular basis? Is there a connection between docility and the desire for appeasement (having our cake and eating it too) and lack of religious faith? It’s also a well-known fact (Reginald Bibby) that, in Canada, 80% of our population attends neither synagogue nor church on a regular basis.
Something to think about…
…or another way of putting it: Is there a connection between the creeping secualr humanism of our age, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, and docility, passivity, and appeasement when it comes to dealing with a lethal and deadly enemy?
There’s got to be SOMETHING that accounts for the difference between Europe and North America’s response to Hitler and Nazism 70 years ago and North America and Europe’s tepid response to Osama Bin Laden and Islamofascism…
Knight 99 wrote, “feel the peace and know right from wrong”. (I can hear the violins!) I usually agree with you, but I have a problem with this scenario.
In the West, where relativism reigns, what does this mean? For the atomized, rights bearing individual, the meaning of nearly every word could be quite different, and in Western society, this kind of deconstructionism is actually encouraged.
So, what does “right” and “wrong” mean? In the secular West, it’s now a given that “You have your truth and I have mine and there could be many others in between”. What is “peace”? Those on the left believe just saying it makes it so. Others know that thinking “Peace, peace, where there is no peace” (Bible) is a sham and that sometimes, paradoxically, one must fight for peace.
Re the list of “faith in ___________”. Every _________ contains a word with multiple meanings in our deconstructed, modern society. E.g., “life”: I believe that includes the pre-born child. A lot of people in the West, conveniently (and erroneously) deny that this organism is a human being. (Google Samuel Alexander Armas: go to the second site listed: Fetal Surgery. One will see the tiny hand of this 21 week old foetus grasping the hand of the surgeon doing an in utero procedure.) How about “family”? Totally ignoring “nature”—?—our courts have made a pretzel of that one, etc.
The Bible also says, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The smorgasbord of choices on display for those in the West makes the heads of both individuals and society as a whole spin. This is not a recipe for discerning right from wrong or for peace: all our “freedoms” and “rights” and the social engineering that accompany them have made our society much more resemble the Tower of Babel than Eden.
Unfortunately for us, we face an enemy quite united in what it believes and in what its plans are for us. I see us as the grasshopper in the Aesop’s fable to their ant: we quibble and fiddle while there’s serious work to be done. This does not bode well for us.
I’ve just read batb’s posts. I altogether agree.
When all parties to a decision are considered “equal”–a false doctine–we have a problem. In addition, I’d say all the choices in the West make compromise a much more likely option and consensus and resolve much less likely.
As I’ve said, this does not bode well for us.
some biblical prophecy about Israel being provoked by a “non-people”
Devarim (Deuteronomy)chapter 32
16. They (Israel) provoked His zeal with alien worship; they made Him angry with abominations deeds.
17. They sacrificed to demons, which have no power, deities they did not know, new things that only recently came, which your forefathers did not fear.
18. You forgot the [Mighty] Rock Who bore you; you forgot the God Who delivered you.
19. And the Lord saw this and became angry, provoked by His sons and daughters.
20. And He said, “I will hide My face from them. I will see what their end will be, for they are a generation of changes; they are not [recognizable] as My children whom I have reared.
21. They have provoked My jealousy with a non god, provoked My anger with their vanities. Thus, I will provoke their jealousy with a non people, provoke their anger with a foolish nation.
The discussion here has been very interesting reading. In my own subjective study of this issue for the past 7 years, I have noted that the majority of people who support the state of Israel, recognize God (of the the Bible). Secular humanists generally (I have found this among Jewish and non-Jewish liberals)have a problem with Israel because if Israel is sovereign in Jerusalem then maybe maybe the Bible is right and there is a single Judge for all.
The Jewish left/liberals are just as mixed up as the left we have to deal with in North America and Europle. They do not recognize that Islam will have a problem with Jews/Christians whether Israel exists or not. They think that by being anti-Zionist anti-Israel this shows how tolerant and inclusive and progressive they are.
They make the world dangerous for all of us.
lookout >
Sorry that was a little tongue in cheek and a poor attempt at whimsical sarcastic. Actually I wholeheartedly agree with one of your earlier threads about the importance of religion in society. It’s a binding force in many communities and provides for the needy.
Batb was correct this was not the discussion for this thread but I was somehow sucked in. I detest talking about religion and usually avoid it like the plague.
Knight 99: Yeah, discussing religion is a toughie–but sometimes it just has to be done! At certain “proper” clubs, the rule is “you can’t talk about sex, politics, or religion.”
‘Good thing SDA isn’t a “proper club”!!
ex-liberal: I appreciate your comments on the role
religion plays in this issue: “…I have noted that the majority of people who support the state of Israel, recognize God (of the the Bible). Secular humanists generally (I have found this among Jewish and non-Jewish liberals)have a problem with Israel because if Israel is sovereign in Jerusalem then maybe maybe the Bible is right and there is a single Judge for all.”
This is a perspective that non-religious North Americans and Europeans don’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole, but to avoid doing so avoids getting to the crux of the matter.
‘Tried to post but have been caught in the filter…
batb: There’s got to be SOMETHING that accounts for the difference between Europe and North America’s response to Hitler and Nazism 70 years ago and North America and Europe’s tepid response to Osama Bin Laden and Islamofascism…
_________________________________________
I think you are exercizing some selective history-telling. It’s not that the West was utterly brave then following the banner of God, and utterly cowardly now, and that the only difference is the depth of faith in the societies then and now.
The differences between then and now are easy to see in political and social ways, not religious ways:
1) When Britain was attacked in WWII, Canada was much of a part of the British empire than it is now. Hell, France was totally gone, so even the Quebecers had some reason to want to fight. Despite that, conscription was very controversial and strained Canadian unity. There is no existential threat to Canada or England at this time – to the eyes of the public anyway.
2) The US was isolationist, with some elements even pro-German. Support for Britain by way of finances and supplies had to be fought throught tooth-and-nail. It was only Pearl Harbor that mobilized the Americans.
The Americans have had no equivalent of Pearl Harbor. Sorry, 9/11 doesn’t compare. At the end of Pearl Harbor, the Americans had no Pacific fleet worth mentioning. There was open discussion of an invasion from Japan. Traumatic though 9/11 was, it is not the same.
The difference is also the incredible wealth that comes from the Middle EAst, and which buys cooperation from governments and corporations.
Finally, the existential threat that Nazism posed to the Western democracies was obvious. The threat of Islam is much less obvious and hidden by the media, apologists and moral relativists.
All these things are far more relevant than how strong religious faith was 60 years ago vs now.
Lori, I wasn’t saying that people went to war in WWI or WWII “following the banner of God.” (I get a rather nasty image from that wording.)
It was, however, and still is for those who have faith, imperative for us to “be our brother’s keeper,” to stand for freedoms founded on Judeo-Christian principles, such as the integrity and worth of each individual, one is innocent until proven guilty before the law, etc.
In other words, most of us in North America knew what we stood for and definitely recognized a threat when we saw it. Notwithstanding the U.S.’s isolationist policy until Pearl Harbour, they did eventually join the War Effort and the rest is history.
When you say, “Finally, the existential threat that Nazism posed to the Western democracies was obvious. The threat of Islam is much less obvious and hidden by the media, apologists and moral relativists” you exactly make my point.
Why was the threat of Nazism obvious then, whereas the threat of Islamofascism now is “less obvious”? It is, as you admit, because the members of our MSM, apologists, and relativists “hide” the reality of the threat we are facing.
And why? Because they do not have a clear sense of what constitutes a threat to our whole way of life in the West which would be apparent, I suggest, if they were grounded in the moral, ethical, theological, and spiritual ethos that was prevalent in North America and Europe during the first half of of the last century. (Many, if not most, newspaper reporters and radio commentators were Christians and were not ashamed of their faith. In fact, their faith informed their commentary.)
Your final comment “All these things are far more relevant than how strong religious faith was 60 years ago vs now” is your opinion, with which I’m afraid I disagree.
Looks like it’s just the two of us now…. 🙂
In partial partial rebuttal of your rebuttal of my rebuttal…
1) The fact that the US “saw the light” after Pearl Harbor speaks to the fact that it was the military event Pearl Harbor that triggered intervention, not morality. They didn’t just become moral that day. They just got pissed and worried. Their faith had little to do with it. If a nation attacked the US now in a way which threatened it meaningfully (a nation, not a handful of terrorists), I am certain they will react now as they did in WWII.
2) I do agree that our media now, and academic and intellectual institutions are filled with those who would see the Western world harmed and humbled. This has always existed, but is clearly worse now than 50 years ago. Is this due to lack of religion? I am skeptical. Our ministers, priests and rabbis are some of the most left-leaning people around, with their touchy-feely interfaith groups that do nothing but legitimize the Imams. Look at the Archbishop of Canterbury. No one has questioned his faith. Only his common sense. I challenge you to find a single mainstream religious group that strongly decries Islamic encroachment. And even if you find one, I could find dozens which do the politically correct touchy feely BS that weakens the West.
I think it is guilt. Guilt that we succeeded, and that so much of of the world has failed. Rather than standing proud on the obvious triumph of our way of life, we seem to apologize for it, and make damaging concessions to a myriad of failed states, failed ideologies, and failed religions.
I would note that guilt has always been great tool in the hands of organized religion.
So, we will have to agree to disagree, but it has been a pleasure discussing this with intelligent people in respectful way.
Regards
Thanks, Lori.
I’ve enjoyed this thread, too, and the many intelligent and thoughtful ideas expressed. ‘Lots of food for thought…
I’m still here! And I addressed the guilt/organized religion/secular society factor almost at the top of this thread:
“So, then, what happens to our sense of guilt? It doesn’t just go away. I believe that the self-hatred and guilt of much of the West has very much to do with projection: no longer having, or even understanding or wanting a valid outlet—humility, honest self examination, confession, and absolution, which are all carried out, individually and communally, within religious Christian and Jewish communities—the guilt is projected outward. (Not having fallen for the liberal Zeitgeist, perhaps non religious libertarians are still protected by the remnants of the moral capital from our religious forebears: let’s remember that the foundations of the “just, free and equal” society are Judeo-Christian.)
“I believe that the secular state has everything about backward: the individual, now a tolerant hedonist, is propped up and lauded at the expense of the community. Then things begin to rot from the soft centre out. Who was it who said that strong nations aren’t destroyed from the outside but, instead, with bread and circuses to appease them—which is why they’re so willing to appease others—they commit suicide.
“IMO, the West is well into that process. Kyrie eleison.
“Posted by: lookout at March 14, 2008 9:30 AM”
Lori, I don’t imagine you’ll see it my way–batb probably will–but I, too, have enjoyed the amicable, intelligent give and take on this thread. Thanks.
Cheers/blessings: either or both!