Book Sale

Friday, 29 November 2024

Has Standing With Israel Blessed America (Part 3) - America's Wars In The Middle East

 

America's Wars In The Middle East



I once stated publicly that it was easy to demonstrate that supporting Israel has not blessed America and a pastoral colleague saw my statement, and sought me out to query me about this. He said he would love to get together and grill me about how I could make such a statement when it is clear that America is the greatest nation on earth, and therefore, he asserted that I probably did not have a credible leg to stand on. As you have seen, though, from my previous two parts of this series, not only is this argument able to be sustained, once you start investigating this subject it becomes easy to see that the idea that standing with Israel has blessed America is not only wrong, it actually becomes quite absurd the more that you look.

I should note before I go any further that I do not write these arguments with any intended antagonism towards America. Quite the opposite actually. America is a great nation that has achieved much good in the world over time. And it saddens me to see such a great nation diminished by such bad ideas. It is also worse that a great source of this problem stems from heterodox teachings from the evangelical church in the United States, especially. The church has a lot to answer for in the way it has mislead Americans on so many topics. From prosperity heresy to giving a shroud of cover for forever wars in the Middle East, the Church has done a lot of damage in America and has blasphemed the name of Christ in the process.

And it is without dispute that the Church is largely to blame for this. As Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe notes, “The Christian and Jewish lobbies for Israel, at least until now, were deemed the most important ones by Israel. And extraordinarily, it seeks their help in gaining legitimacy in this century as well.”[1] Without the evangelical church’s focus on artificially restoring the nation of Israel this effort would not have been possible. This support for Israel did not just spring up after the fact, as some people assume. As Pappe notes,

“Zionism began as an evangelical Christian concept and later an active project. It appeared as a religious appeal to the faithful both to aid and be prepared for the ‘return of the Jews’ to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state there as the fulfilment of God’s will. But soon after, the Christian involved in this campaign politicised this ‘theology of return’, once they realize that similar notion had begun to emerge among European Jews, who despaired of finding a solution to the never-ending anti-Semitism on the continent. The Christian desire to see a Jewish Palestine convinced with a similar European Jewish vision in the late nineteenth century.

For Christian and Jewish supporters of Zionism, Palestine, as such did not exist. In their minds, it was replaced by the ‘Holy Land’ and in that ‘Holy Land’, from the very beginning, there was no indigenous population, only a small community of faithful Christian and pious Jews…”[2]

These deniers of the existence of Palestine amongst Jewish and Christian Zionists exist still to this day, as you have probably seen. You may have even been one yourself once. I once was one of them until the plain reading of history broke that spell for me. But from the very beginning this effort to recreate the nation of Israel in Palestine, or the land of Canaan, was a joint Jewish and Christian effort. That is not to say that all Jews and Christians supported it, but that large segments of both sides have been working behind the scenes and publicly to get this done. This is well documented,

“US President Woodrow Wilson’s support for the Balfour Declaration would not have been so strong if not for his view of America as the new Zion and support for Christian restorationism, the idea of a Jewish return to the Promised Land. From the time of the Puritans, Americans saw their country as having religious significance. Thousands of towns were given biblical names and colleges made Hebrew a mandatory part of their curricula. Restorationism was voiced by American leaders as early as second president John Adams, who wrote in a letter: “I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.” [3]

I know for many of you reading this you are aware of this evangelical support helping prop up Israel from the beginning. But I have had people deny it to me, so I feel like it needs to be thoroughly established. This support is both well documented and widely so. Therefore, the entire project of modern Israel can legitimately be seen as a test case for the idea that standing with Israel brings blessings to those who support it. And in America’s case, this is clearly not what has happened.

One of the results of America’s close standing with Israel has been to get it sucked into an ongoing round of forever wars in the quagmire of the Middle East. This was obviously going to happen, because it was only through British Imperial might that pre-1948 Jewish migration was able to increase its presence in the land. As was noted,

“Jabotinsky wrote in 1925, “you must find a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf…. Zionism is a colonizing venture and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces.”81 At least initially, only the armed forces provided by Britain could overcome the natural resistance of those being colonized.[4]

The myth that someone does not exist is most easily disproven when that person smacks you in the nose. And that is precisely what the Palestinians did to British Imperial efforts. They did not accept being told they were non-existent and irrelevant and they did not want to be overcome without a fight. Eventually Israelis would take the lead in these efforts, but the continued ongoing support of more powerful nations was just the given expectation. The King-Crane commission, delegated to investigate the establishment of Israel in Palestine made this exact assessment,

“Told by representatives of the Zionist movement that it “looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine” in the course of turning Palestine into a Jewish state, the commissioners reported that none of the military experts they consulted “believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms,” and all considered that a force of “not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required” to execute this program. In the end, it took the British more than double that number of troops to prevail over the Palestinians in 1936 through 1939. In a cover letter to Wilson, the commissioners presciently warned that “if the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.”82 The commission thereby accurately predicted the course of the subsequent century.”[5]

That which does not exist does not fight back. As Khalidi notes,

“Balfour did “not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs,” and initially seemed to believe there would be no significant reaction to the Zionists taking over their country. But in the words of George Orwell, “sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield,”83 which is precisely what happened on the battlefield in the Great Revolt, to the Palestinians’ lasting detriment.”[6]

Israel thanked Britian for its efforts in establishing an increased Jewish presence in the Mandate era in Palestine with terror attacks.[7] But we will maybe come back to that in a future post.

For now, we should note that even before the nation of Israel was set up America was warned that to support it, practically, meant a massive military presence in the region. The British underestimated how hard this would be and suffered for it. America has too. While I do not hesitate to state that I support the existence of a state for Israel, because I believe that every nation should have its own sovereign state to govern its people, still, it must be stated that for many Christians the Zionist dream is very much a Utopian vision, and Utopias are always a dangerous quest. The dream was that the land was a basically an uninhabited land that was largely populated by Jewish people since time immemorial, and therefore, there is no reason why a Jewish state should not be able to settle across the land of Abraham. The reality is that since the Roman times the Jewish population in then Syria-Palestine and then just Palestine was a tiny minority and whoever wanted to take the land away from Arab rule would have a heavy fight on their hands from the Palestinian people, who were numerous, and had been there in some cases just as long.[8] And this is exactly what has taken place. As noted above, “…if the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.”

This prediction also gives us a window through which to explain America’s disastrous 20th and early 21st century Middle Eastern foreign policy. America has lurched from defeat to defeat in the region, with the exception of the first Iraq war[9], largely because its Middle Eastern policy has been Israeli centric and irrational. 

Jeffrey Sachs, economist, public policy analyst, former Harvard and current Columbia University professor, notes,

“For 30 years the Israel Lobby has induced the U.S. to fight wars on Israel’s behalf designed to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian State. Netanyahu, who first came to power in 1996, and has been prime minister for 17 years since then, has been the main cheerleader for U.S.-backed wars in the Middle East. The result has been a disaster for the U.S. and a bloody catastrophe not only for the Palestinian people but for the entire Middle East.

These have not been wars to defend Israel, but rather wars to topple governments that oppose Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.”[10]

Americans, and the world really, have been lied to about these wars across the years. At the heart of this American aggression in the Middle East has been America’s close ties to Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu. As Sach’s notes,

“What is shocking is that Washington has turned the U.S. military and federal budget over to Netanyahu for his disastrous wars. The history of the Israel lobby’s complete takeover of Washington can be found in the remarkable new book by Ilan PappĂ©, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic (2024).

Netanyahu repeatedly told the American people that they would be the beneficiaries of his policies. In fact, Netanyahu has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people, bleeding the U.S. Treasury of trillions of dollars, squandering America’s standing in the world, making the U.S. complicit in his genocidal policies, and bringing the world closer to World War III.”[11]

You’ll recognize in my references that I quote that mentioned book above. Netanyahu has had an incredible personal influence over American policy in the last three decades. As can be seen by this except from his book Fighting Terrorism,

“The cessation of terrorism must therefore be a clear-cut demand, backed up by sanctions and with no prizes attached. As with all international efforts, the vigorous application of sanctions to terrorist states must be led by the United States, whose leaders must choose the correct sequence, timing, and circumstances for these actions.”[12]

Netanyahu outlined his belief that it was necessary for the United States to lead the effort to topple calcitrant governments around the Middle East. Look at the countries he noted, in 1995 mind you, that the United States needed to deal with, “The international terrorist network is thus based on regimes—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan.”[13] Such is the influence of this one man that his determination of how America should lead the way in fighting against his enemies became American foreign policy in large measure up to the present day.

This influence in the American political system came in many forms, but particularly through the Neo-Conservative Plan for the a New American Century (PNAC).[14] PNAC “set forth a new agenda for foreign and military policy…” for conservatives to push in the Clinton era, that would bolster American support for the conservative party, increase the power of the military industrial complex in American politics, and lay out a strategy for creating American dominance in the Middle East.[15] The PNAC  came to power in American politics through the second Bush administration. The aim of this lobby was to diminish the influence of Paleo-conservatives and other non-interventionist conservatives in the Republican party, to allow the conditions for American to establish a “pax-Americana” and military dominance over the world.[16]

The group was mainly made up of secular Neo-Conservatives, and other foreign policy hardliners. However, it did have a Christian influence as well,

“Albeit sparsely represented, right-wing social conservatives closely associated with the Christian Right constituted another important sector in the PNAC coalition. Among those representing the social conservative faction were Gary Bauer, former director of the Family Research Council and current president of American Values; former Vice President Dan Quayle; and two other prominent cultural warriors: Steve Forbes and cofounder of Empower America, former Representative Vin Weber.”[17]

PNAC was calling for America to deal with the problems of Iraq and Taiwan while Clinton was still president. But they got their moment to shine in the days of Bush jnr.

Have you ever wondered why America invaded Iraq because hijackers from Saudi Arabia, who were probably hiding in Afghanistan at the time and who had nothing to do with Hussein, attacked America?[18] Well, here is your answer,

“On Sept. 20, 2001 PNAC sent a an open-letter to President Bush that commended his newly declared war on terrorism and urged him not only to target Osama bin Laden but also other “perpetrators,” including Saddam Hussein and Hezbollah. The letter made one of the first arguments for regime change in Iraq as part of the war on terror. According to the PNAC letter, “It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”[19]

It is because this is what the Neocons wanted. And they got their war. And as Sachs has noted, this was all outlined by Netanyahu in his book about how to fight terrorism. The idea was that all you had to do was topple difficult governments and put the people you want in charge and this would stop terrorism. Boy does that sound stupid now in the light of hindsight. What if those governments even moderately represented the thinking of their people? What if the people just took issue to being invaded by westerners with rainbow flags and feminist messaging? Yet, this effort to stand with Israel and topple these governments has directed much of American foreign policy for the last three decades.

Look at this,

“The most recent PNAC report, Iraq: Setting the Record Straight, is an apologia for the disastrous invasion and war. It concludes that President Bush’s decision to act “derived from a perception of Saddam’s intentions and capabilities, both existing and potential, and was grounded in the reality of Saddam’s prior behavior.” The PNAC report blames the reporting on the UN inspection teams and U.S. government statements that “left wide gaps in the public understanding of what the president faced on March 18, 2003, and what we have learned since.” Also PNAC charges that administration critics “selectively used material in the historical record to reinforce their case against the president’s policy.” In other words, rather than recognizing what we now know—that much of the intelligence presented to the public to justify the attack was false—it insists that the president made the right choice and makes no apology for its own role in urging the administration to invade Iraq.1”[20]

America was lied into the war and about the reasons for the war. And people worked this out pretty early on.

This article I am quoting from here was written in 2006 and already they were noting the damage that the Neo-conservative policies had done to America and its Middle Eastern policy. Today, we see it has gotten much worse, and currently is escalating. PNAC lost its influence over time, however, American involvement in the Middle East continued. In large part because of the belief by many in America that the United States will be blessed if it stands with Israel. This was even stated recently by American House Speaker Mike Johnson.[21]



America has become more radical in its outspoken support for Israel as the situation in the Middle East has escalated out of control.[22]

Now that we have established that America’s wars in the Middle East stem in large part from its support for Israel, let’s ask the question: have these wars blessed America? No! Objectively not. America has grown increasingly in debt because of the expenditure of these wars.[23] The war in Iraq has also cost America more than 2 trillion dollars, just by itself, and this figure could end up being over 6 trillion over the next few decades.[24] The way the war on terror has been fought has caused many American liberties to be taken from them. It has involved itself in torture programs, and has killed countless people around the Middle East. The death toll on America’s hands in Iraq alone is deplorable. And America has been rapidly losing its standing around the world as a result of these wars. It is no longer viewed as a liberator state, but as a violently aggressive one.

The Bible says explicitly, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” But America has not been making peace in the region, it has been making war against foreign peoples who may not be on our team religiously or morally, but who have not attacked America or Australia. Therefore, these wars are illegitimate wars of aggression. This a clear sign of a country given over to a curse. In this case, ever increasing bloodshed. God judged Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Syria and many other nations in the Bible for the bloodshed they caused in far off foreign lands. What does the Bible say about countries which invade other lands and take their spoils,

“9 Proclaim to the strongholds in Ashdod and to the strongholds in the land of Egypt, and say, “Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria, and see the great tumults within her, and the oppressed in her midst.” 10 “They do not know how to do right,” declares the Lord, “those who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds.” 11 Therefore thus says the Lord God: “An adversary shall surround the land and bring down[a] your defenses from you, and your strongholds shall be plundered” (Amos 3:9-11).

Is it a coincidence that the nation that respects very few borders in the world cannot protect its own borders? No. A nation without borders is hardly a nation, and God has taken away security from American borders in large numbers. How can you attack other nations across the Middle East, a far away region, and expect not to have spiritual curses because of this?

Israel has a right to exist and to defend its people. So to, though, do the Palestinians. We, and Americans, have no right nor moral standing to get involved. And in the case of America, getting involved has led it to commit grievous sins of violence against many countries. Not only has standing with Israel not blessed America, it has caused it to go down a very dark path indeed. One that was predicted, mind you, as we noted already but read it again,

“In a cover letter to Wilson, the commissioners presciently warned that “if the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.”82 The commission thereby accurately predicted the course of the subsequent century.”[25]

The people who wrote this had far more wisdom than many Christians today. Till next time.

List of References



[1] Ilan Pappe, 2024, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic, Oneworld Publications, preface.

[2] Ibid, Chapter 1.

[4] Khalidi, Rashid . The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: The International Bestseller (p. 51). Profile. Kindle Edition.

[5] Ibid, pp. 51-52.

[6] Ibid, Khalidi, p. 52.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

[8] Not all Palestinians are Arabs, there is a mix of DNA in these people going back into ancient times. https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000

[9] Though its success their probably led to its failure later on, as it grew over confident.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[15] Ibid, p2.

[16] Ibid. p3.

[17] Ibid. pp3-4.

[18] Yes, I know. I know. Another time, another article.

[20] Ibid. p8.

[25] Khalidi, Rashid . The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: The International Bestseller (pp. 51-52). Profile. Kindle Edition.

Thursday, 28 November 2024

Diversity Initiatives Make People Worse

 




I have long written about the foolishness of pushing diversity onto people and for diversity initiatives. Though one could make the case that making people experience the results of diversity is one of the most effective arguments against pushing diversity one can proffer. Once people see the results of these efforts, their foolishness becomes rather self-evident. However, our society continues to push diversity as if it is the most wonderful thing that could ever happen to people or any given organization. But what about when it is factually proven to be otherwise. What should the media do with this information?

Well, here is what some of the media has done,

“In a stunning series of events, two leading media organizations—The New York Times and Bloomberg—abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that raises serious concerns about the psychological impacts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pedagogy. The study, conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University, found that certain DEI practices could induce hostility, increase authoritarian tendencies, and foster agreement with extreme rhetoric. With billions of dollars invested annually in these initiatives, the public has a right to know if such programs—heralded as effective moral solutions to bigotry and hate—might instead be fueling the very problems they claim to solve. The decision to withhold coverage raises serious questions about transparency, editorial independence, and the growing influence of ideological biases in the media.

The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, the researchers demonstrated that exposure to anti-oppressive (i.e., anti-racist) rhetoric—common in many DEI initiatives—consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed. Participants were more likely to see prejudice in neutral scenarios and to support punitive actions against imagined offenders. These effects were not marginal; hostility and punitive tendencies increased by double-digit percentages across multiple measures. Perhaps most troubling, the study revealed a chilling convergence with authoritarian attitudes, suggesting that such training is fostering not empathy, but coercion and control.”[1]

They hid the data! 

Teaching people to see attacks in minor interactions leads to a situation where people read attacks and racism where no such thing was intended,

“The harm in question goes far beyond the scope of individual programs. Across multiple experiments, the study documented a consistent pattern: exposure to anti-oppressive DEI rhetoric heightened participants’ tendency to attribute hostility and bias to ambiguous situations. In one experiment, participants read excerpts from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, juxtaposed against a neutral control text about corn production. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate a hypothetical scenario: an applicant being rejected from an elite university. Those exposed to the DEI materials were far more likely to perceive racism in the admissions process, despite no evidence to support such a conclusion.”[2]

This is much the same thing that happens to a lot of women who focus on gender studies, they start to see the world through a lens of women as oppressed and men as the oppressors. Ironically, once people have this kind of worldview, they then tend to take on an authoritarian attitude to those they consider to be their oppressors, they also cause people to be far less trusting of society in general,

“This discrepancy highlights a core issue with DEI narratives that emphasize systemic oppression. By priming participants to see injustice against specific groups, these trainings appear to cultivate a “hostile attribution bias”—a tendency to perceive prejudice and discrimination even where none exists. While sensitivity to genuine bias is critical, the NCRI findings suggest that DEI interventions like the ISPU materials may create unwarranted distrust in institutions and undermine confidence in objective fairness…

The findings suggest that these programs may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets….”[3]

The damage done to our society through mass immigration and from the top down enforced diversity is then multiplied with diversity initiatives in a host of different ways. The focus on diversity initiatives is making it almost impossible for America to compete against China in the technology space, for one. But secondly, the constant focus on diversity and forcing this topic on people is turning people against each other, and creating a hostile work environment, literally. As the Putnam study showed nearly two decades ago, where diversity increases, so to does division. Which makes sense, because they both stem from the same root word. These diversity initiatives will eventually come to an end, the only question is how much damage will they do in the meantime?

And of course, how did these large media institutions handle this research again? As we noted, they tried to hide it,

“Yet, as troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. In a moment when public trust in institutions is already fragile, the media’s role as a gatekeeper of information becomes all the more worrying. When powerful outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg withhold stories of such significance, they fracture trust with the American people.”[4]

Not surprising in the slightest, is it? The Bible notes that people are good at suppressing the truths that they do not want to hear. This is part of the fallen human nature. In this case, powerful organizations that promote diversity do not want it getting out that researchers are gathering a growing body of research about the damage it does. So spread the word. 

List of References

Tuesday, 26 November 2024

A Classic Blunder

 


Everything in this life has it ending. Everything, and that especially applies to the imperial pretentions of nations. I remember when I was young hearing that Britian were soon going to have to give Hong Kong back to China. I remember thinking, how could we do such a thing? That is ours, that is the rightful possession of the British Empire, why would they just give that up like that? But such was the deal, and Britian was in no place to assert its continued dominance over part of China. The problem is that so many of us grew up on James Bond movies that we still thought of England as a serious player on the world stage. It seems too many of the people who grew up on those movies are now in charge, because they are looking to commit suicide by foolishness:

“Britain and France have not ruled out sending troops to Ukraine as part of a European coalition, French media has reported, amid fears that the war is edging closer to becoming an all-out conflict between Russia and NATO.

Discussions on sending troops from Western armies and private defence companies have been 'reactivated', according to French daily newspaper Le Monde, months after President Macron faced opposition from Western leaders over the suggestion.

The talks have also been revisited amid concerns that US support for Kyiv could be pulled by president-elect Donald Trump when he enters office on January 20, sources reportedly claimed.

London and Paris could head up a new coalition of European allies of Kyiv, the sources said, with the proposal said to have gained traction in recent weeks due to Sir Keir Starmer's visit to France for Remembrance Day on November 11.

'Discussions are underway between the UK and France regarding defence cooperation, particularly with the aim of creating a core of allies in Europe, focused on Ukraine and broader European security,' a British military source told Le Monde.

When asked about the possibility of French boots on the ground in Ukraine, France's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, told the BBC: 'We are not ruling out any option.'

'We will support Ukraine as intensely and as long as necessary. Why? Because it is our security that is at stake. Each time the Russian army progresses by one square kilometre, the threat gets one square kilometre closer to Europe,' he said…

…His comments appear to confirm that France has followed the UK and US in giving  Kyiv the green light to use long-range missiles it has supplied it with in strikes on Russian territory.”[1]

Russia is much, much stronger now than it was prior to World War 2. Its military is more advanced, its population has grown much larger, its industrial base has withstood and thrived under severe sanctions for over two years now (really longer), and it is allied with the largest industrial nation in the world, China, which sits right next to it. It does not need to fight across seas, or travel long international distances, and its military is winning, gaining ground, something the western media finally admit, and has built combat experience in a theatre of war larger than anything that Britian has ever been involved in, and anything France has been successful in for some time. All the advantages go to Russia because it has gotten stronger, even in the last 2 years, and Britain and France are shells of their former selves. Even loyal children of the former empire like myself can see that.

At its peak Britain could not have beaten Russia in a land war in the Ukraine. Churchill was so terrified of the possibility of such a war that he submitted the British to American dominance and lost the Empire just to make sure such a thing never happened. To be sure he wanted such a war to be fought, but he wanted to do it with a European and US coalition that would have provided much of the arms, men and equipment, because beating Russia was out of Britian league…at the height of its empire. Beating Russia was out of France’s league…with Napoleon. Beating Russia was out of America’s league, and until recently, they knew it. But now all of these powers in their diminished forms are pushing harder and harder for a war with Russia on land in Asia! 

Your empires are over gentlemen. Britain’s has been for some time now, as has France’s and America has not won a war of any note for some time now. It is time to stop the imperial pretentions before you demonstrate again why it is a classic blunder to het involved in a land war in Asia. Russia has won, the sooner we accept that fact the less painful the realization and process of decline will be. But if our leaders refuse to stop poking the bear things could get very bad for the West.

List of References



[1] https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/britain-and-france-not-ruling-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine/ar-AA1uIEIC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=ddb4b23579bd4bc5a909327b1009bd10&ei=11

Monday, 25 November 2024

Paul Was Right About Women

 




So much of the world we live in and what we see happening is very clearly a result of people just outright ignoring the word of God and what it says on any given issue. War in the Middle East? Look at how both sides deny Jesus, and all that he says about living in peace with each other. Corruption in government? Look at how basically no modern country pays any attention to the importance of having moral people in parliament. Personal corruption and political corruption are extensions of bad morality, not separate issues. Ignore God’s word and you get bad results.

The same can be said with the rampant feminism that runs riot across our society today. This is a direct result of modern man ignoring what the word of God says about women who are not managing the home. Take this prime example from the ABC.[1] What an unpleasant person. Why is she telling couples how they should determine what information they share with each other? How is this her place? How is this anybody's place? This is something those couples should be working out amongst themselves, in the process of building a life together. But this woman wants to criminalize, or at least call violence, people not getting their boundaries right? Also why is an American woman coming on Australian TV to advocate for expanding the definition of violence? Why do we give any of these kinds of people any air time?  

Well, the answer is because the western world has disconnected women from their God-given duties. As Paul says,

“9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. 11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry 12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan. 16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows” (1 Tim. 5:9-16).

Paul is concerned here that the Ephesians are not encouraging younger women to direct their energies and time properly. The application here is to widows, because in his day and age, what other women except shrine priestesses considered going single for very long. But what he says in 1 Timothy 2 shows it applies much more generally,

“12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:12-15).

When a preacher reiterates something, it is because he wants us to pay attention to it. Paul’s concern here is that if women are not busy managing the home, and their extended family, and all that goes with that, they will become busybodies, saying things they ought not to say. Does this not describe feminists in our culture today? Busybodies who say things they ought not to say. That is probably the most apt description of them. Our society is filled with these often bored and often wrongly employed women who want to take their intelligence, gifts, and abilities and use them to micromanage as many people’s lives as possible.

Women are intelligent, highly organized people. They are on average more intelligent than men, which is necessary for training and teaching in the home. They are often gifted to handle multiple spinning plates at once, and to seek to manage the lives of those under their charge. This is a mighty superpower when applied to the home and to raising children. It is a terror when this is taken and directed to society in general. These kinds of women in society today are plethora and they are constantly looking for things they can tighten up, bring more under their control and more in line with the kind of safety perspective that is good for a home, but stultifying in wider society. They absolutely run wild in schools, hospitals and other female dominated areas, and government is quickly becoming one of those sectors.  

This is why feminists are constantly redefining domestic violence to include each and every kind of toxic or possibly toxic behaviour that two sinners can express when they are in an unhealthy place. This is the woman’s natural role, to look for the kinds of threats that those who cannot look after themselves, namely children, need to be protected from. But when they apply this to society they infantilize everyone and this predilection to being overbearing becomes a pedantic quest to put emotional bubble wrap in every part of society. Only women with degrees in psychology could imagine that emotional interactions are actually violence, but our society just happens to produce such women in spades. Imagine seeking to police how adults interact with their social media profiles within the confines of the home. Who even has the time to think of such interference in peoples lives? Busybodies, that is who. Women who are not properly employed as God intended.  

Paul is shown again to be right. Women who are allowed to become busybodies are not just an annoyance, they can fall into snares of the devil. And those under the devil’s thrall can do some serious damage to the rest of society. Consider this, feminists want to tell someone who wants to check their spouse’s phone that they may be an abuser, or have abusive tendencies, but will turn around and say that a woman who kills her child in the womb is empowered. What kind of wickedness creates such a worldview? Someone under the snare of the evil one.

I wonder how much this is a result of modern sensibilities, and how much is just the result of a society that has declined into moral disaster? Isaiah says something interesting about women in such a society. He says, “16 The Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet,…” (Isa. 3:16). And Amos says, “4 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to your husbands, ‘Bring, that we may drink!’” (Amos 4:1). Both these prophets appear to note that once a society becomes too decadent that women come to dominate their men, and be given to glancing about with their eyes at what else they can dominate. Does this not sound like feminists today?

Paul was right. When men do not provide it breaks them. Which is why he challenges men that do not provide. They become something they were never meant to be. When women become divorced from their God-given role in society they become busybodies who say things they ought not to say. What is worse the weaker men bow before it and give in to it. And when there is enough women like this, your society becomes a set of ever increasing rules and regulations increasingly invading more and more aspects of people’s lives, because the main concern of women was always meant to be the home. It is natural for them to direct their focus there. It was just meant to be their own home, not the homes of everybody else. But do you see how you can take the feminist out of the home environment, but it will still become her pre-occupation to direct the home. Do you see that? The woman without her own home to manage does not lose her nature, she just finds a way to redirect it. And these increasingly invasive feminist organizations are the result. And this all stems from thinking we were smarter than the Apostle Paul. Again, he was proven right and we are shown to be wrong. You can have women direct the home as loyal and faithful wives and mothers, or as busybody feminists that think it is their duty to rule overall. Isn’t that interesting?

List of References



[1] https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/esafety-commission-research-reveals-25-of-australians-accept-sharing-partner-passwords-raising-coercive-control-concerns/vi-AA1uGvHv?ocid=socialshare

Saturday, 23 November 2024

World War 3 Confirmed…Again

 




I have noted on this blog several times that we are already in World War 3. As have others wyo have been paying close attention to this war, of course, I am not the only one. The mainstream media on the whole is still hiding the fact, but it is becoming so undeniable now that some mainstream sources are admitting that we have been in World War 3 for some time,

“World War III has already begun. Battles are already being fought on the ground and are being coordinated across multiple countries,” Dimon said at the annual event in Washington, D.C., on October 24…

Dimon’s comments coincided with the conclusion of the BRICS summit, where Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa were able to deepen their cooperation with a group of non-Western countries such as Iran, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.”[1]

If a World War is considered to be a war involving a large number of countries, spread across the globe, fighting on multiple fronts, then this war has qualified for some time now. It began with the toppling of the Ukrainian government in a colour revolution in 2014, and went live in 2022, when Russia finally got directly involved in helping ethnic Russians in the Donbass fight against the attacks of the Ukrainian military. The involvement of the United States and its European and western allies in supplying, training, equipping, and fighting in Ukraine in various roles, showed that this was not a local war between Russia and Ukraine, but a global war of the were-West* verse Russia. The alliance of North Korea, China and others with Russia extends the stakes involved in this theatre of the war. The sides have drawn up for battle. 

The opening up of the Middle Eastern front in October 2023, and the escalation of that front of the war, showed that much more is going in between the declining US empire, and its satellites and opponents around the world. Just as World War 1 and 2 happened towards the end of the British Empire's reign, so too is World War 3 coinciding with the end of America’s dominance over the world economy and the waning of its advantage over all other militaries. When the hegemon get’s old and decrepit, everyone else comes out to play. 

The admission of one of the world’s leading banks that we are in World War 3 is simply another confirmation that those who have been making this case were right all along. After all, don’t they say all wars are bankers wars, so if this bank is saying we are in the World War 3, then don’t they know? The only question now is how long will it go on, and how bad will it get before it ends?

This is one of the reasons so many of Trump’s supporters are so happy that he won. Now, all we can do is wait and see how he handles this escalating situation. Biden’s stupid move of allowing Ukraine to use longer range missiles that can attack deep into Russia is clearly a move to escalate this war before the man who ran on an anti-war platform can stop it, or at least reign it in. If last time he was playing on hard mode, now he is playing on impossible mode. Pray for him, pray for peace and pray your country is kept out of any conflicts that come.

List of References

Friday, 22 November 2024

Has Standing With Israel Blessed America (Part 2)

 

Last week I began a new series examining whether or not standing with Israel has blessed America. It has gotten some response, much good, some negative, which is too be expected. This is a touchy topic for some people because many Christians have made this a pillar of their faith. For them it is a given: you stand with Israel, or you stand against God. This is why I am examining this, because I have looked in great detail at what the Bible says about who God’s people really are, but that is not the only way to challenge this idea. We can also look at whether or not the idea has real world tangibility.

Before we go further though, I should probably define what I mean by blessing. God says to Abraham in Genesis 12:

“1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

It should be noted that this is not a promise to Israel, but is rather a promise to Abraham, as God says, “I will bless you…” Who is he addressing? Abraham. Then he notes that he will bless those who bless Abraham, and he will curse those who curse dishonour him. This promise is clearly Abraham centric, there is no mention of Israel, the physical nation, in the passage, nor is there mention of the modern nation of Israel. Abraham has been told he will be made a “great nation”, but the blessing is not yet tied to this, and at this point this could refer to any number of physical nations that came from Abraham, and also the Church itself, the holy Nation of God. So, we should note this passage is not able to be used honestly to justify standing with Israel.

However, the promise of blessing is passed on through Abraham’s children,

“15 And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba. And Abraham lived at Beersheba” (Gen. 22:15-19).

This promise is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, as Peter demonstrations in Acts 3:25-26, where he directly quotes verse 18,

“25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:25-26).

Peter applies this promise to Abraham, that blessing would come to all nations through his offspring, to his most significant descendant, Jesus Christ. The blessing of Abraham is fulfilled ultimately in him, and all who are blessed by turning from their sins to Jesus. Paul also demonstrates this in Galatians 3, when he says, “16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).

So, it is legitimate to see the promise of blessing to Abraham carried on through his descendants, or offspring, though ultimately it is a promise of the blessing of salvation brought through Jesus Christ. However, we see in both Abraham and his family’s line a shadow fulfilment of this promise. Abraham lied to both Pharoah and Abimelech about his wife Sarai, and both these men were placed in danger because of this. However, God enriched the man Abram through these interactions, and in the case of Abimelech we see this king was spiritually blessed, because God personally warned him not to touch Abraham’s wife, because he saw the integrity in Abimelech’s heart. Pharoah was similarly restrained, but through plagues. In the case of Jacob, we see how his presence on his relative Laban’s farm brought material blessing to his entire extended family. To such a point that Laban tried to keep Jacob there.

This gives us a metric for determining whether the promise of blessing is still in effect with the modern nation of Israel today, and whether, or not, the nation of America has been blessed by this connection. We see clear, measurable, material and spiritual blessings being bestowed upon those who blessed Abraham, and we see punishments from God, both spiritual and material on those who sought to harm him.  It’s important we establish this, so that those who make the claim that standing with Israel can’t have their cake and eat it too. That is, so that they can’t claim that America has been blessed, and then say but it does not matter if this is not materially or even spiritually observed, because blessing can be unquantifiable. This kind of assertion allows people to hold this position as a determined dogma, but then wiggle out of the necessity to demonstrate it. We need to hold a blow torch to this idea and test it.  

So, let’s give two examples in this article of America’s support to Israel correlating with what can only be viewed as lack of blessing. The first will be material, and the second spiritual.[1]

In my first piece on this issue I showed that America’s support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war led to both causative and correlative negative flow on effects. I focused on the national debt and degradation to American industry, but that is simply two examples. If you look at America’s unemployment rate since 1973 it has tracked upward over time. It has not remained consistently up or down, but has trended towards worse employment numbers for Americans, as seen in this graph[2]:



Figure 1: US unemployment rate tracked over time.

In October 1973 unemployment dropped to 4.6% but as you can see it skyrocketed across the decade and only got back down to that level in the early 2000’s. This is hardly the sign of a blessed economy. If you look at the graph dating before 1970 you can see the unemployment rate went up and down but was on average much lower, and employment peaked in July 1953. People look back to the 50’s as a golden age for a reason. But when you factor in the fact that unemployment is not counted the same as it used to be, the picture is even worse than this.

The real unemployment rate is far higher than the official unemployment rate. The real rate takes into account the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers, whereas the official rate accounts for those looking for work who do not have a job.[3]



Figure 2: The real unemployment rate, verse the official.

This shows that the situation for the American economy is far worse than the first graph even shows. This shows that over time, with some exceptions, American participation in the workforce has been declining. When Jacob was with Laban, the latter’s flocks increased and there was more work and more prosperity for all involved. But over time things have gotten worse for the American worker, though US support for Israel has increased. This is not even counting how real world wages have massively declined since the 1970’s. So, how can one argue that America has risen and been blessed since its very open international support for Israel began? There has been a marked decline across the economy. Americans are worse off.  

And, note this, there was a direct negative impact on employment as a result of that Yom Kippur war, as seen in the graph above. How could there not be? US energy prices skyrocketed. Of course this was going to lead to job losses across the country.

Someone might say, what about spiritual blessings? Has standing with Israel transferred blessings to the American Church? Well, look at US Church attendance going back to 1952[4]:



Figure 3: American decline in religious observance.

As the article notes,

“The resulting decline in religion stopped by the end of the 1970s, when religiosity remained steady. Over the past fifteen years, however, religion has once again declined. But this decline is much sharper than the decline of 1960s and 1970s. Church attendance and prayer is less frequent. The number of people with no religion is growing. Fewer people say that religion is an important part of their lives. All measures point to the same drop in religion: If the 1950s were another Great Awakening, this is the Great Decline.”[5]

So, support for Israel has not led to a revival in Christianity in America. How can the decline of the Church be called a blessing for a nation?

Today there are less than half the churches in America than there was 100 years ago.  This is just one of the startling statistics that reflect the state of the Church in America today there is no doubt that Christianity in America is changing and we will need to adapt along with it.”[6]

In my previous article I tied America’s support for Israel to the 1973 Yom Kippur war, that is not because that is when it began, it actually started before that, that was simply because that war was such a prominent event, its effect on the US was measurable. But no matter where in its history you tie US support for Israel to the American religious situation, Christianity has declined. Yet it has increased massively in other parts of the world. Think of a country like China, which does not have politicians making public statements about believing in blessing for military support for Israel, but there the church grows. Of course, China has its own issues, but a declining Church is not one of them.

But the picture is not all bad. Church attendance in some of the younger generations is increasing. For instance, between 2019 and 2022 Millennials went from having a weekly church attendance rate of 21% to 39%, which is a notable increase.[7] What makes this so interesting is that the younger generations who are increasing their church attendance are also less likely to have a favourable view of Israel.[8] 


 Figure 4: Generation support for Israel.

Of course, Boomers have the strongest support for Israel, next is Gen x, and after that Millennials and then Gen 7, whose support for Israel is in a marked decline. One might turn around here and note that well, Matt, the Boomers are the wealthiest generation in history, therefore, should not other generations follow their support for Israel, to receive the same blessings? All I would say in response to that is: look at the economy that Boomers are handing to their children, it is a far worse one than they ever experienced, and they are the first of the recent generations to hand their children less opportunities than they themselves were handed. So, is this a sign of blessing, or a nation being given over? I think the answer is obvious myself. Maybe if Boomers had invested that money for trips to Israel into helping their kids buy homes or pay for education, the number of Millennials in Church would be higher? 

So, as you can see by both a material and spiritual metric it can be demonstrated that support for Israel has not blessed America. It is harder for Americans to get jobs, and the church is in decline overall, with some positive movements in some of the younger cohort; a cohort that is less likely to support Israel. This idea that standing with Israel means blessing for America is bad theology, and as you can see this is also demonstrated in the figures. 

Till next time.

List of References



[1] Though I should say to some degree I see this as a false dichotomy. All good things come from God above, as Jame the brother of Jesus told us.

Thursday, 21 November 2024

Trump’s Appointments

 




If you are like me you have been less than excited about many of Trump’s appointments. My biggest concern so far is how many Zionists that Trump has put in his administration. This was predictable, Trump did the same thing the last time round. He has taken big money from the Israel pro-war lobby in both campaigns, but this time he seems to have increased their preponderance in his team.

However, there is something to be said for people with my perspective that maybe we put too much emphasis on the Zionism of the people he is picking and overlook some of the advantages for other parts of his platform. RFK junior, Tulsi Gabbard, and Matt Gaetz all have the swamp freaking out over their selections, and even the radical Zionist Pete Hegseth has a history of speaking out against things like women in the military, so he has some big pluses.

This over-emphasis perhaps comes from this simple fact that I am not an American. So, my largest concern with the Trump election was regarding the ongoing world war that is happening as we speak in Ukraine, the Middle East, and with tensions heating up in East Asia. Because of this focus on foreign policy, and war, people like myself might put an inordinate amount of emphasis on the foreign policy positions of Trump’s selections. For instance, RFK is horrible on Israel and Gaza, but could do wonders for world health when he tackle the Pharmaceutical companies and their corruption. So, there is something to be said for looking at Trump’s picks as a whole, and not just looking at their foreign policy statements.

If you also have concerns, let me encourage you to listen to this debate between Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal and Revolver News founder Darren Beattie.[1] Beattie thinks we should give Trump every benefit of the doubt, because he earned it in his first term. He started no new wars and can be trusted to do the same this time around. Max is not so optimistic. Although, interestingly, both of them agree about the positives of many of Trump’s picks. There is no doubt that a lot of the right people are upset about the damage that people like Gaetz or Gabbard could do to many parts of the elite establishment, and this has to be at least a partial good.

It may be that Donald is simply seeking to work within the Zionist dominated American political system as best as he can, and he is determined to restrain the war hawks and focus on solving the border crisis, fix health, and rectify the American economy. If he does, this will be good for America and the world.

But it could be that Trump is committed to the Zionist cause, and is putting the right people in place to take control on the Middle East. His picks do not make this an impossibility. Hegseth’s past positions on war with Iran make him sound like he wants that war bad, as do many of the swamp creatures Trump once committed to stopping.

If I were to put on my Trump 4D hat, I might be able to make a case that Trump is playing the long game here and knows that he needs to have the Christian Zionist and Israel lobby on his side so that he can have the strongest position for his presidency as possible, but he is also using this as an opportunity to show the American people just how bad things can get with their involvement in Middle Eastern war. But at the end of the day Trump is a politician, he does not deserve trust, but scepticism and he needs to prove that he can fulfill his promise not to worsen World War 3 before I’ll give him that credit.

Of course, I am not an American, so my opinion does not have a major effect one way or another. But I am hoping that Trump is the man to stop World War 3, solve the border crisis, and inspire other nations to do likewise, and that he restores some prestige back to the western economies that has been squandered since 2020. He may not be that man, but one can hope and hope is never bad.

List of References



[1] Debate