Tag Archives: multicultural moral relativism

Mar 15 2015

Why Jews in Israel Can’t Win Against their Arab Foes


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

When I first visited Israel in 1972, I asked my host, a Harvard graduate, to tell me about the political science curriculum at Tel Aviv University. He told me it doesn’t include political theory, which is taught in the philosophy department. I was shocked, because this meant that Aristotle, the father of political science, who wrote treatises on 100 Greek polities, was not taught in Israel’s largest university.Imagine this: Aristotle wrote the first and most comprehensive work on Statesmanship. He also wrote two treatises on Ethics and the first systematic treatise on Rhetoric.  He is the very man who taught Alexander the Great, who was a statesman as well as a conqueror.   Nevertheless, this man, an unsurpassed architectonic genius, in comparison with whom Machiavelli’s knowledge of politics could be put on a postage stamp – this Aristotle, to date the world’s greatest political scientist, had no significant place in the curriculum of Israel’s political science departments, hence in the studies of those who became, or were to become, Israel’s policy makers and decision makers! Heaven help us! Let me offer only a few simple words about Aristotle on whom I have written an entire treatise contrasting him with the leading thinkers of modernity.As is well known, Aristotle set forth a six-fold classification of regimes: three just and three unjust, depending on whether or not the rulers ruled in the interest of the common good. Kingship, aristocracy, and “polity” were included in the good. Their degenerate forms, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, were included in the bad.Although kingship, for Aristotle, is the best regime in theory, one almost never finds a people with enough wisdom and virtue to construct such a regime. Aristotle therefore devotes a good deal of space in his treatise to what he deems the best regime in practice, a “mixed regime,” which he calls a “polity.”  A polity, which I liken to a “Republic,” combines democracy, the rule of the poor (meaning, for Aristotle, those who have to work for a living), and oligarchy, the rule of the rich. However, our wise Aristotle weights his mixed regime somewhat toward democracy to ensure greater political stability and security. He thus prescribes a middle class regime that respects the rule of law to resolve disputes among its citizens and thus maximize justice.That Aristotle distinguishes between good and bad regimes is the basic reason why he is a virtual stranger to contemporary political science in the democratic world, including Israel and the United States, where the doctrine of moral relativism reigns supreme. This doctrine induces Israel, a democracy, to engage in the morally neutral policy of “conflict resolution” when dealing with the Palestinian Authority, a tyranny. Aristotle would say that this policy is morally perverse as well as politically futile, if not self-destructive.

But I know of no political scientist in Israel that would utter such a statement, and none should be expected given the moral relativism that underlies the teaching of political science in this country, as I have noted in books and many articles since 1976, both in English and in Hebrew translations, but which Israel newspapers have ignored, with one ephemeral and forgotten exception.

The exception was once reported, but never used to causally as well as logically explain the disastrous territorial policies of Israeli prime ministers, by the gifted editor and political analyst of The Jerusalem Post, Caroline B. Glick.  Come with me back to the year 2003 and see how the subversive doctrine of moral relativism was manifested by Israel students at Israeli universities.

Ms. Glick addressed some 150 political science students at Tel Aviv University, where she spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by moral relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.  Yet the general attitude of her academic audience was expressed by a student who asked, “Who are you to make moral judgments?” Now ponder this exchange between Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:

Student: “How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?”

Glick: “Because it is better to be free than to be a slave.”

Student: “How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?”

Glick:  “Did you learn that in Russia?”

Student: “No, here.”

Glick:  “Here at Tel Aviv University?”

Student:  “Yes, that is what my professors say.”

Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists who indoctrinate their students and ban “politically incorrect” publications.

Ms. Glick did not have to elaborate by saying that moral relativism is undermining Israel’s struggle or conflict with morally confident – nay arrogant – Muslims that rule the Palestinian Authority.  She could hardly be expected to anticipate the “two state solution” to this conflict, which Benjamin Netanyahu advocated on June 14, 2009, is a logical consequence of moral relativism.

Mr. Netanyahu is not a moral relativist, judging from a brief encounter I had with him some years ago. Nevertheless, he succumbed to the “two-state solution” advocated by the American State Department, whose officials, according to former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, are steeped in “moral equivalency,” the corollary of moral relativism. But this university-bred doctrine is one if not the basic reason why Jews can’t win against their Arab foes!

Mar 15 2015

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Does H Clinton Have The Integrity To Be President Of U.S.A?


Mar 14 2015

Navy Chaplain Removed From Unit for Teaching ‘Biblical Truth’ on Sexuality


There is no way you can be a Christian Chaplin in today’s military and also be true to the teaching of Christ!

Mar 14 2015

MY PERSONAL SERVER…


I wish I had a personal server … lol

Mar 14 2015

Obama’s odd series of exaggerated gun claims


Well may comment is based on past history so whether this is true or not would depend on your definition of what a “Gun” is (there are 1911A1’s and the are squirt guns) and what your definition of a “Fresh” Vegetable is (there are vegetables that have just been picked and vegetables that are transported and processed). And there always is that it depends on what your definition of “is” is.

deacon303's avatarWhiskey Tango Foxtrot

“It’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable’

This is just a very strange comment that appears to have no statistical basis. Perhaps one can just shrug it off as hyperbole, but is this really something the president of the United States should say to college students? As far as we know, there are no areas in the United States where background checks are needed to buy vegetables.

Obama-liar-in-chiefUpdate: Some readers have suggested the president was actually referring the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “food desert” locator, which shows areas of the countries in which it is difficult to buy fresh vegetables. That’s an interesting interpretation that puts the president’s comment in a different light. Not all gun sales require background checks, we should note. For what it is worth, the White House declined to provide an explanation for…

View original post 361 more words

Mar 13 2015

(IF YOU LOOK UP THE WORD TRAITOR IN THE DICTIONARY IT SAYS “SEE JOHN KERRY’.) OUCH! What Obama’s Flip-Flopping State Sec’y Just Told The Senate Is An Embarrassment


What can you say this entire situation was created by Obama, Hillary and Kerry none of which are known to be very smart; dispite all the media attempts to make them sound otherwise!.

Mar 13 2015

The Greening of a High Tech Third World Nation


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Wise Americans have called Barack Obama not only a “Post-American” President, but also a “Third World” President. This disparagement should be taken seriously, and that’s the basic intention of the present article, which transcends politics even though it focuses on the pathetic but strutting character of Barack Obama.

If you have a President as ignorant and as arrogant as Mr. Obama, and if he enjoys some support among Democrats in Congress, he is bound to say anddo things that contradict Americas two foundational documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution.

Since these documents embody the Principle of Limited Government and the related System of Institutional Checks and Balances, it’s time for some Senator, or some member of the House of Representatives, to address the public and enumerate the many times President Barack Obama has displayed ignorance as well as arrogance regarding these sacred documents. And it would be wise and most timely if this Senator or Representative is serving, respectively, in the Senate or in the House Judiciary Committee.

Of course, by exposing statements and/or acts of Mr. Obama that disparage him politically, and that may possibly incriminate him legally, the public may call for his impeachment, and this may result in violent urban repercussions that would make the recent riots in Ferguson appear mild by comparison.  Hence, some other lawful way should be formulated to render Mr. Obama innocuous.

Whatever method is chosen, it should serve to educate the American people about the principle of Limited Government and how this principle is fleshed out by our system of institutional checks and balances.  The public will then learn how this system was designed to minimize the danger that an ignorant or an arrogant President might abuse the powers of the Executive Branch, and thus violate the Rule of Law, a foundation stone of civilized society. The Obama Administration has been lax on this law by its turning a blind eye toward Muslim organizations whose creed is not very civilized.

It should also be emphasized, however, that the ignorance and arrogance manifested by the Obama Administration is not only a consequence of Mr. Obama’s post-American, Third World leanings. His leanings reflect a century-long evolution of nihilism in American higher education. This nihilism,  better known as moral relativism, has filtered down and stultified countless citizens of this now sexually indiscriminate country to the extent of transforming high tech America into a morally lax or semi-third world nation!

Mar 12 2015

Christopher Hitchens Vs Frank Turek Debate Atheism or Theism


The Video is 2 hours long but if you are interested in this subject its a good one to get both sides from, BTW just for the record I am on the side of Theism.

Mar 10 2015

Jobs Don’t Exist So That You Can Support Your Family


Re-Posted from the Garcia Report

Posted by Pedro Garcia on 07-01-2014

Image by The All-Nite Images on FlickrI hear this argument all the time when discussing Minimum Wage laws: “How is a person supposed to survive, making X dollars an hour?” The answer, of course is, you’re not. The idea that every single job should pay enough to support a person and his whole family, is ludicrous. Think about the last time you paid someone to do a job for you; a plumber, landscaper, painter, or whatever. Did you come to an agreement on the price based on how much money the worker needed in order to pay his bills, or did you pay him or her based on the job performed?

Some jobs pay more than others because they are simply more valuable to the person who is paying. As consumers, we love choices. We sometimes choose to buy lesser quality goods to save a little money. Sometimes, we choose more expensive goods because we find them to be worth the money. But somehow, this gets lost on those who think even the simplest jobs that require no skills at all, should have some minimum price arbitrarily set by the government.

What is a job anyway? You may use your job as your source of income in order to support yourself and your family, but this isn’t the reason for its existence. A job is something that needs to be done. Someone needs something done and is willing to pay for it because having the job performed by someone else is worth more to that person than the money he is giving up. And the person who voluntarily accepts a job offer has determined that the money he or she will receive is worth more than the time and effort required to perform the job. If both sides didn’t feel they were better off by entering into the agreement, no agreement would ever take place. It isn’t one-sided as many would have us believe.

If you subscribe to the notion that society owes you a job that pays a certain amount, then why aren’t you contributing by hiring someone to do your dishes for you, just so you can help someone pay their bills? Maybe because it’s not worth it for you to pay someone to do your dishes? What if I told you that not only must you hire someone to do them, but you also should pay that person a “liveable” wage? When people claim to have a right to a job or a right to a minimum wage, they always forget that someone else needs to be forced to provide that so called “right.”

If you can’t make enough money doing a particular job, then you need to be doing a different kind of job, one that is more valuable. This may sound harsh, but it is also economics and common sense.

“But these companies are just so greedy! They always want to pay you less.” Umm, yeah, and employees always want to earn more, those greedy bastards. Somehow, the vast majority of jobs pay more than the minimum wage set by the government. Have you ever wondered why that is? Employers are greedy. They don’t want to pay more, but somehow they do. Who is forcing these evil people to do this against their will, if it isn’t the almighty government? Could it be that those jobs are actually that much more valuable to employers than minimum wage jobs? Could it be that if they refuse to pay more, they could lose employees to their competitors? That couldn’t be, could it? Because what we are told is that if the government didn’t step in, these evil corporations would have us all working for nothing and we would have no choice in the matter.

Jobs that require little skill and are therefore, not as valuable to employers actually serve a great purpose for students and those with little or no education. It allows them to gain some of the basic skills necessary so that they can become more valuable, and earn more as a result. If you want people to earn more, you should be thinking of ways to make them more productive/valuable, not finding ways to prevent students, the poor, and the unskilled, from accepting jobs that pay less than what you feel they should get paid. How dare you? Laws that mandate a minimum wage just backfire and hurt the very people we are trying to help.

Mar 9 2015

I TOLD YOU…


HE DID TELL US — I GUESS NO ONE WAS LISTENING!