Category Posts by Others

Sep 10 2015

Backward Muslims and Stultified Israelis


Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

To begin to understand why Muslims are backward, consider this passage from G. E. Von Grunebaum’s Modern Islam (1962):

“It is essential to realize that Muslim civilization is a cultural entity that does not share our [Western] primary aspirations.  It is not vitally interested in analytical self-understanding, and it is even less interested in the structural study of other cultures, either as an end in itself or as a means of a clearer understanding of its own character and history.”

Bernard Lewis’ essay, “The Roots of Muslim Rage” (1990), not only portrays Islam’s profound hatred of the West, but its overweening arrogance and utter contempt for Western civilization.  Convinced of its possession of absolute truth, Islam cannot believe it is of any value to study cultures steeped in error.  Hence it discourages among the faithful any incentive to understand other cultures from the latter’s own point of view.

Unlike Jews (and Westerners generally), people mired in the mentality of the Qur’an or of Islamic culture lack the ability to see or respect the other fellow’s point of view and to moderate their demands accordingly. This attitude makes fools of Israeli prime ministers who negotiate with Muslims!

The late Professor Y. Harkabi, a prominent Israeli expert on Islam, failed to draw this conclusion.  Even though his book, Arab Attitudes to Israel (1972), is replete with Islamic vilification of Jews and Israel, he advocated a Muslim state in Judea and Samaria!  I mention Harkabi because he was not only a former Director of Israel Military Intelligence, but also the mentor of Shimon Peres.  Indeed, he was once head of Israel’s Command and Staff College.

The officers who graduated that College  – Ariel Sharon was one of them – were surely influenced by Harkabi’s book, whose most significant message was not the obvious hatred of the Arab world toward Israel, but Harkabi’s conclusion that justice favors neither side of the Arab-Israel conflict!

Harkabi’s moral equivalency is rooted in cultural relativism, a doctrine to which he explicitly subscribed.

This university-bred doctrine, which has tainted Israel’s ruling elites, has undermined wholehearted confidence in the justice of Israel’s cause.  This doctrine is foreign to Islam.  Utterly convinced of the absolute justice of their cause, Muslims look upon Jews who defend themselves as “aggressors.”  That Jews should kill Muslims (even in self-defense) enrages these Quranic believers and arouses in them a relentless and all-consuming desire for revenge unlimited by the passage of time.

The civilized idea of “enemies in war, in peace friends” – proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence – contradicts Islamic culture and theology.  This idea presupposes an international community of sovereign nation-states which, despite frequent wars, acknowledges that people can be friends despite their differences.  Nothing in Islamic history affirms this basic principle of civilization.  To reject this principle is to exalt war on the one hand, and to deny the sanctity of human life on the other – precisely the ethos of Jihad.

There is but one honest conclusion to be drawn from this fourteen-century Islamic ethos:  Israel will not enjoy genuine peace with its neighbors so long as Muslims remain Muslims! (Syrian-born psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan concludes that Islam must be “transformed,” not merely “reformed.”)

Harkabi’s aforementioned book provides an abundance of documentary evidence to confirm this conclusion, a conclusion obscured by his cultural relativism.  This relativism has stultified the mentality of Israel’s ruling elites: politicians and judges, academics and journalists.  Despite Arab-Islamic barbarism, they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and confront the enormity of evil that animates Israel’s enemies, and they persist in negotiating with these Janus-faced Jew-haters whose fanaticism, sterility, and love of death constitute the negation of civilization.

Israel desperately needs a new dispensation, one that transcends our stupefying and spiritless era of relativism. Needed is a dispensation conducive to the ascendancy of men of truth and moral courage.  I see no such men in the secular democratic world, enslaved in nihilism, materialism, and moral egalitarianism –    a world that blurs distinctions between good and evil and between what is noble and what is base.  Needed, therefore, is a renaissance of Hebraic civilization.

The first, practical step in this renaissance is to advance into leadership a man who will take a non-compromising position on the Land of Israel.  By itself, this position entails fidelity to the People of Israel and the Torah.  This bold refusal to negotiate over the Land of Israel will generate the spiritual courage required for a renaissance of Hebraic civilization, whose rationality, creativity and love of life constitute the West’s most precious beliefs and values.

Sep 10 2015

Multiculturalism: France and Israel


Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg 

Almost 2,400 years ago, Aristotle, the founder of political science and the greatest political scientist, discussed, in his Politics, the various causes of insurrection and revolution.  He drew from his knowledge of some 150 ‘city-states’ on which he wrote treatises (now lost, except for fragments from his treatise on Athens).

One of the causes of insurrection and revolution, he saw, was “heterogeneity of stock,” by which he means what is now called “multiculturalism.”  We see the consequences of multiculturalism violently manifested in France, which has not been able to “integrate” its five million Muslim inhabitants. In hundreds of French “no-go” zone neighborhoods, Muslims have intimidated the government into largely ceding authority over them. Neither tourists nor cops dare enter these Muslim-dominated areas.

America may eventually face such a dilemma with the large and illegal immigration of Hispanics across her southern border. Crime is rampant among them.

It should be obvious that democracies, which are most inclined to multiculturalism, will be most susceptible to “ethnic violence,” a euphemism for budding insurrections.  Aristotle emphasized that the strongest bond of society is friendship, hardly to be expected in multicultural societies.

A related point:  Aristotle distinguished between five different types of democracy. The worst is anarchy, which, he said can hardly be called a ‘regime’ (or polis).  All democracies have an inherent tendency toward anarchy because their two cardinal principles, equality and freedom, lack ethical and ethnic constraints.

Moreover, the egalitarian principle of one adult/one vote is tilting political power to the Left, which is why Barack Obama, a self-professed Muslim, as well as an undisguised anti-American, turns a blind eye to illegal Hispanic immigration, on the one hand, and appoints pro-Muslims to his administration, on the other. American “civilization” is evaporating.

Israel is not immune to this problem, given its burgeoning Arab population, now almost 20 percent.  Most of these Arabs oppose the existence of the Jewish state.  Yet no public official dares address this problem, lest he or she be labeled a “racist.”  Sooner or later, however, “heterogeneity of stock” in Israel will explode, and more violently than the Muslim uprisings in France.  A Muslim insurrection in Israel will have the support of Israel’s neighbors.

Thus, when a French prime minister reaches out to Muslims by tacitly admitting France has failed to live up to its egalitarian ideals, he is not only seeking Muslim votes; he’s hastening the demise of France.

Like Hamas and other Muslim terrorists, the Muslim “rioting” in France is not animated by economic inequality so much as by ethnic antagonism – again, “heterogeneity of stock.”  But it’s precisely French “egalitarian ideals” that provide the political cause of that rioting.

Economic motives aside, French egalitarianism is the ideological cause of France’s permissive immigration laws.  More and more European statesmen have begun to see this, and are limiting the immigration of Muslims to their respective countries.

Aristotle was well aware of the economic causes of insurrection and revolution. Gross economic inequality among the citizens of a polis can transform a democracy into an oligarchy and thereby arouse envious resentment and hatred by the poor. This may be happening in Israel.  Israel has the greatest income inequality among the developed nations; indeed, a small minority controls the wealth of the country.

Aristotle offers constructive advice on these matters, much of which is consistent with Jewish law.  Instead of welfare programs that make citizens dependent on the state, he urges the creation of jobs that will make citizens self-reliant. This will lead to the development of a large middle class, which tends toward moderation and is amenable to the rule of law.

However, just as the laws require the support of morality, so morality requires the support of the laws. But how can morality and the laws integrate ethnic groups having antagonistic conceptions of morality and law?  French leaders obscure this dilemma, as do Israeli politicians. Like typical bourgeois, they believe ethnic conflict can be overcome by economic prosperity and equality – the panacea of Shimon Peres’ New Middle East (which has infected Netanyahu).

Here I am reminded of the 1937 Peel Commission Report, which stated: “Although the Arabs [of Palestine] have benefited from the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect.  On the contrary, improvement in the economic situation in Palestine has meant the deterioration of the political situation.”

The ethnic and ideological significance of this report seems never to have penetrated the democratic mind, including Netanyahu’s.  To this day it is widely believed, by socialists or Marxists as well as by capitalists, that the ultimate cause of conflict is economic scarcity.

Aristotle had a far more comprehensive view of the subject than contemporary political scientists, especially those addicted to “conflict resolution.” It behooves Israeli (as well as European) politicians to consult Aristotle, whose understanding of politics is without equal.☼

Aug 12 2015

Living Baby Part’s to the highest bidder!


By Jeff Longo

Thanks to Plain Dealer letter writer Karen Tucker [Baseless assault on Planned Parenthood] for reminding us how mindless and out of touch liberals have become. She’s appalled by the vicious attacks on Planned Parenthood that are based on heavily edited videotapes. Surely even Ms. Tucker understands when videotapes are hours long they require editing for time constraints in the media. There were multiple sites where the unedited versions could be viewed in their entirety. Nothing changes, we still see a callous abortion doctor, void of emotion, describing how the baby is removed from the mother’s womb and systematically crushed with forceps in a way not to damage the organs that will then be sold. She discusses this grotesque procedure while dining on salad and sipping wine. We then witness another abortion doctor sifting through a petri dish, identifying baby’s body parts, while discussing their value.

These are living babies that feel pain and we’re allowing it to happen. Planned Parenthood is an abomination that is helping rot our country’s moral foundation. Ms. Tucker and liberalism are the acid that eats away at American exceptionalism. Abortion is America’s Holocaust and one of the barometers future civilizations will judge us by.

Aug 2 2015

“Prepare for a Nuclear Iran”


Posts by Eidelberg [2008] and Bolton [2009]

Essay 1: “Iran: Our Most Dangerous Enemy” 

Paul Eidelberg (May 9, 2008)

Iran has been at war with the United States and Israel ever since the Khomeini-inspired Iranian Revolution of 1979.  This is, or may become, the most far-reaching revolution in human history.  Iran is not only the epicenter of international terrorism. Iran’s ultimate goal is to restore the Persian Empire and spread Shiite Islam throughout the world.  This is not fantasy….

Iran is gaining decisive influence on Syria and Iraq. Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, virtually rules Lebanon. [Hamas is another proxy of Iran, has access to the Sinai where it could threaten Egypt].

If this was not enough, Iran controls the world’s spigot of oil flowing through the Persian Gulf. This nation of 70 million people can wreck the world’s economy. With control of the vast oil resources of the Persian Gulf, a nuclear-armed Iran, with its long-range Silkworm ballistic missiles, would cow an already craven Europe, without which the American economy would utterly collapse, period.

Hence, the question arises: “Will the U.S. or will Israel launch a preemptive attack on Iran, the engine of Islamic imperialism?” At stake is the survival of Western civilization. [Iran’s] maledictions, “death to America” and “death to Israel” speak of a world without Christianity and Judaism.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 reported that Iran had ceased its nuclear development program in 2003. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton wrote an excoriating critique of the NIE report in The Washington Post (December 7, 2007).  He warned that “the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all” (my emphasis). This is precisely why Mr. Bolton wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal virtually encouraging Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. He boldly asserted that the US should support Israel before, during, and after such a strike – should it take place.  [Hardly to be expected with Obama in the White House.]

Essay 2: “It’s Crunch Time for Israel on Iran”

John Bolton (July 28, 2009)

It’s routine for senior American officials to descend on Jerusalem. Most important was a visit of [former] Defense Secretary Robert Gates. His central objective was to dissuade Israel from carrying out military strikes against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. Under the guise of counseling “patience,” Mr. Gates conveyed President Barack Obama’s emphatic thumbs down on military force.

[Meanwhile], Iran’s progress with nuclear weapons and air defenses means that Israel’s military option is declining over time. Worse, Mr. Obama has no new strategic thinking on Iran. He vaguely promises to offer Tehran the carrot of diplomacy followed by an empty threat of sanctions down the road if Iran does not comply with the U.S.’s requests. This is precisely the European Union’s approach, which has failed for over six years.

Unlike Obama, Israel sees the diplomatic and military situation concerning Iran in a very inauspicious light. Israel fears that the Obama administration, once ensnared in negotiations, will find it very hard to extricate itself. The Israelis are probably right. To prove the success of his “open hand” or “outreach” policy, Mr. Obama will declare victory for “diplomacy” even if it means little to no gains on Iran’s nuclear program.

Under the worst-case scenario, Iran will continue improving its nuclear facilities and Mr. Obama will become the first U.S. president to tie the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities into negotiations about Israel’s nuclear capabilities.

Relations between the U.S. and Israel are more strained now than at any time since the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. Obama’s message to Israel (via Gates) not to attack Iran, and the U.S. pressure he brought to bear, highlight the weight of Israel’s lonely burden.

Striking Iran’s nuclear program will not be precipitous or poorly thought out. Israel’s attack, if it happens, will have followed enormously difficult deliberation over terrible imponderables, and years of patiently waiting on innumerable failed diplomatic efforts by the United States.

Absent Israeli action, prepare for a nuclear Iran.

Jul 28 2015

A Message to My Fellow Americans


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Whereas (1) the leaders of Iran have brazenly and repeatedly screamed “Death to America,” and

Whereas (2) this genocidal threat is derived from immutable Islamic theology, and

Whereas (3) this genocidal threat is derived from the Qur’an and other Islamic scriptures, on which the entire power structure of Islamic regimes are based and continue to exist, and

Whereas (4) Islamic theology precludes enduring political compromise or accommodation with non-Muslims, and

Whereas (5) the Government of Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons program to implement the genocidal malediction “Death to America,”

Therefore, the only rational, responsible, and upright policy of the United States and of its next President is to eliminate Iran as a political power capable of fulfilling that malediction.

Any reliance on diplomatic agreements with Iran that contradict that curse is indicative of folly and cowardice, or the inability to face the fact that Islamic leaders cannot engage in abiding compromise with the United States without violating their religion or Islamic scriptures, a breach that would undermine their continuance in power vis-à-vis any competing Islamic party.

Therefore, it behooves Americans to support that Presidential candidate who possesses the courage and wisdom to be guided by the preceding considerations concerning Iran, its deeply engrained Islamic character, and its absolutist theological imperatives

Jul 28 2015

Killing Babies for Money!


Post By Jeff Longo

Planned Parenthood has provided a glimpse of the horror that takes place every day behind their walls. One of their top abortion Doc’s was taped explaining the process that allows them to harvest the organs of unborn babies to then sell for research. While dining on salad and sipping wine, she casually explains how the baby is pulled from the mother’s womb and systematically crushed with forceps in a way not to damage the organs that will then be sold. This despicable woman is only part of a much larger discussion. She belongs to an organization that actively promotes the destruction of helpless babies right up to the time they are birthed. And for those who would say Planned Parenthood provides many other health-care benefits for women save your breath, women have many other options for health-care providers and they don’t butcher babies.

Margaret Sanger, a well documented racist, founded Planned Parenthood nearly 70 years ago. Her dream had nothing to do with women’s healthcare or women’s rights. She believed forced sterilization and abortion would assist society by eliminating the unfit. Sanger praised Nazi Germany’s sterilization program and dedicated her life to ridding the world of poor black babies. Hillary Clinton actually said “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. I am really in awe of her.” Hardly comments you would expect from a presidential candidate when discussing a vile racist.

What we are witnessing is the rotting of our nation’s moral foundation. These tiny creatures being crushed to death are not just pieces of tissue they are living babies who feel pain. Planned Parenthood is an abomination that has lobbied against giving women the opportunity to see an ultrasound before allowing the life inside her to be crushed to death. It’s appalling to watch those who defend this atrocity against humanity. Those who respect freedom and the dignity of life look at this depravity with horror and disgust. Abortion is America’s Holocaust and one of the barometers future civilizations will judge us by.

 

 

Jul 24 2015

Negotiating with Muslims


BY Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Since Muslims regard “non-Muslims” as “pigs and “dogs,” and not as wolves, it is not enough for the disciples of Muhammad to kill non-Muslims. The proud warriors of Allah must also degrade infidels, especially Christians, Allah’s most numerous and most powerful opponents and competitors.

That’s what the Islamic war cry “Allahu Akbar” means: Allah is the greatest of the gods.

Overweening pride is the distinctive character trait of Muslims, in contrast to Christians, who exalt humility. Thus, for Muslims to degrade Christians only accentuates the lowliness in which Christian’s take pride!

To the extent that the Christian ethos influences the attitude of American diplomats and American foreign policy experts, these Americans are entrapped in an ironic and deleterious situation when dealing with Allah’s faithful. This is one, but not the only, reason why I oppose negotiations with Muslims.

In relating to the warriors of Allah, one should employ an uncompromising and coercive “either-or” approach.

Of course, such a modus operandi goes against the grain of liberals and democracies whose media are fond of Benjamin Netanyahu’s negotiating ideal of “reciprocity,” a concept utterly foreign to Islam.

Reciprocity is so foreign to Islam that its adoption by Muslims would be equivalent to a renunciation of their religion!

Yet this is precisely what is logically and politically entailed by the policy of “territory for peace” pursued by every Israeli prime minister from Yitzchak Rabin to Netanyahu, along with their countless experts in political science!

Jul 20 2015

Islam Religious Nihilism


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist, contends that Muslim violence and rape, and that Muslim rage and aggression as well as Muslim irresponsibility, stem from Muslim or Islamic beliefs.

If this diagnosis is correct, we would have to conclude that Islam, above and beneath the surface, is a pathological and psychotic creed. This obviously has grave consequences, especially for Israel and America.

First, it means that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in negotiating for years with Mahmoud Abbas, the Muslim leader of the Palestinian Authority, has been dealing with a man whose Islamic beliefs render him a split personality, whereby the disparity between his words and deeds is not the result of hypocrisy – a common frailty – but of (unseen) schizophrenia.

Second, since Barack Obama is a self-professed Muslim, this means that the American people have twice elected a morally obtuse and irresponsible person as their President.

Since a person of Obama’s Islamic ethnocentric beliefs excludes natural rights, he thereby excluded “infidels” from any rights. Hence he cannot reliably distinguish right from wrong from a universalistic perspective. And since Obama also purveys the multicultural moral relativism prevalent in academia, this too will render him psychologically disinclined to disparage a Muslim as a terrorist.

Obama’s ethnocentric vacuity and moral insensitivity explains (1) his returning a statue of Winston Churchill to London; (2) his boycotting the anti-Islamic demonstration in Paris; (3) his hostility toward Israel; (4) his appointing Muslims to Executive departments and agencies, including Homeland Security and the CIA; and (5) his support of Iran despite its nuclear weapons program, and despite its threat to Western civilization.

Wafa Sultan was right in saying Islam is not a civilization. Lee Harris was right in saying Islam is the greatest enemy of civilization. From this I conclude that Islam manifests what is nothing less than religious nihilism, which is personified by Barack Obama, the occupant of the White House!☼

 

Jul 20 2015

Anyone for the Truth on Islam?


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Nicolai Sennels, Danish psychologist, contends that Muslim violence and rape, Muslim rage, aggression and irresponsibility, stem from Muslim beliefs, Islamic beliefs.

If this diagnosis is correct, we would have to conclude that Islam is a pathological – perhaps more precisely – a psychotic religion. There is a great deal of collateral evidence supportive of this seemingly extreme, not to say “racist” conclusion, if only because there are about 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth; and some estimate that as much as 80 percent support Jihad – killing “infidels”!

The Center for the Study of Political Islam makes this high estimate of jihadists quite plausible. According to its February 21, 2007 issue of FrontPageMagazine, Muslims have slaughtered approximately 270 million people since the ascendancy of Muhammad!

Such slaughter is encouraged by Islam’s bellicose nature. One of its most distinctive religious imperatives is Jihad. Indeed, exterminating “infidels” is encouraged by Islamic scriptures.

Moreover, a love of death – necrophelia – call it psychotic nihilism, animates Islamic absolutism. This nihilistic love of death is manifested in Sura 9:111 of the Qur’an, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah.”

The psychotically violent nature of Islam is surely the basic reason why Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, now living in America, does not regard Islam as a civilization.

The philosophically astute Lee Harris, who rejects cultural relativism, defines civilization in terms of four prerequisites: (1) a stable social order, (2) the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, (3) the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and (4) a hatred of violence.

To the preceding I would add (5) a respect for truthfulness, a quality precluded by the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, which exalts deceit and dissimulation as virtues. Islam thus lacks the prerequisites of civilization. Hence it is all the more remarkable that Syrian-born Dr. Wafa Sultan arrived at the same conclusion!

It’s obvious from the preceding remarks that Islam and the West represent a “clash of civilizations,” which the ever correct and cautious PM Netanyahu denied in speech to a joint session of the American Congress on July 10, 1996.

Now, in view of the preceding historical facts and considerations, it should be obvious to any honest observer that genuine negotiations leading to abiding agreements between a nation like Iran, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other, are psychologically, politically, and culturally impossible.

This obviously applies to the “peace process” that has deviously described the relationship between Israel and the factitious Palestinians during the past twenty-two years.

Anyone for truth?

Jul 14 2015

Love, Dogs and Same Sex Marriage


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

 

Same sex marriage is not simply a perversion, one that can be traced back to the Paganism of ancient times, of the Canaanites.

Same sex marriage is symptomatic of the decline of love in modern times, especially in democracies where love has been reduced to a biological urge or desire.

Democracy, whose paramount principle is equality, levels all desires, be it of a man, of a dog, or of a philosopher’s desire of wisdom. In other words, democracy levels distinctions between what is high and low, noble and base, between common or vulgar aspirations behavior and refined behavior or aspirations.  This is democratic nihilism.

Same sex marriage is the end result of nihilism.  It is symptomatic of a dearth of love, and never has love been so lacking as in democratic times.  But this eclipse of love in our times was precipitated by the eclipse of God.

Once man loses sight of the highest, he inevitably succumbs to the lowest, and what is low and lowest characterizes the indiscriminate egalitarianism of democracy.

This egalitarianism makes democracy especially susceptible to the debased or horizontal love of same sex marriage.

There is no political or judicial solution to this nihilism. Democracy is not simply a form of Government; it is a state of mind, which obliterates moral and intellectual distinctions.

Democracy therefore violates the essence of man, whom Nietzsche defined as the “esteeming animal.”  Ours is an era that esteems nothing. It is the era of Nietzsche’s “Last Man,” an era  of Ortega’s “Mass Man” whose highest concern is “security.” Ours is the era of Cocker Spaniels.

Cocker Spaniels do not envy Great Danes. Among canines there are no distinctions of rank.  Love makes distinctions. Same sex marriage eliminates distinctions. It defines an era that has gone to the dogs.