Most of the world is cringing and cowering and begging Benjamin Netanyahu to stop killing the Palestinians. He seems to have either closed his ears to us, or he enjoys tormenting us. Meanwhile, his Zionist allies are not at all embarrassed about ignoring our pleas. And we wait for someone to do something.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the Israel/Palestine conflict has become a familiar category. Although we feel distress, disgust and outrage at what is happening, it’s a very old problem and we are not sufficiently alarmed. In my opinion, we should be. World leaders know they are dealing with a problem that is impossible to solve. All of the madness stems from this impossibility. But, to be clear, it is only impossible to solve if they have to treat the Palestinians with dignity.
Question: Will Israel, with the approval of its allies, wipe out the Palestinians while we watch in horror? Frankly, that’s how it’s beginning to look. And that is the logic of modern Israel. Now, if we think Israel will wipe them out, what can we do? If we were to protest what would we demand? This is where the impossibility of Zionism raises its ugly head.
Theoretically, we could begin by assuring that the Palestinians can control their own food, water, electricity and travel. But then the problem of boundaries would come up. Palestine’s boundaries are too tight. Ideally, Israel would be required to withdraw from its illegal settlements. Of course, Israel would object and the Palestinians would still be unhappy. Why? Israel is just repeating what the United States and Australia have done to their indigenous people.
The reason the Palestinians have been so tightly controlled is they have been robbed, and everyone knows it. And Israel does not intend to undo the theft. The end of imprisonment for Palestine would be the end of Israel’s Shangri-La. So we have probably been begging Benjamin Netanyahu in vain.
I’m not saying the situation is acceptable. It is not. I’m saying this is Zionism. The only reason it still shocks us is the world has been lulled to sleep. Zionism wasn’t just theft. It was also layers and layers of lullabies and lies.
Zionism was premised on anti-Semitism
Zionism has ruined the Jewish people. Today, the world blames Israel for what has happened to the Palestinians. However, the inhabitants of Israel are pawns. Zionism is based on the belief that the Jews are part of a cohesive race of people who want nothing more than to live in Palestine. Ironically, this belief is basic anti-Semitism. A united Jewish ‘race’ was a phantom when Zionism was invented, yet this belief has resulted in the people of Israel proclaiming they own Palestine. What a terrible transformation.
In this context it makes sense that concerned citizens of the world demand a Palestinian state. But they make this demand in spite of the fact that a Palestinian state has been rejected for more than 70 years by everyone in a position to make it happen. This is the trap of Zionism.
A history of meaningless destruction
This history is long and tragic, and it’s been written many times. Unfortunately, we don’t have time to educate ourselves about the causes of the current conflict in Israel. But for those who are aware of the history, it is clear that military solutions are no solutions at all. Yet, in Israel, the horror of October 7 and everything that followed it seems normal. This military regime has no memory of civilization.
The last real civilization that was known in this region was the Ottoman empire. Unfortunately, the reforms of the Young Turks introduced a spirit of Turkish nationalism, and their handling of foreign affairs resulted in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
There were other factions working against the Empire besides the Young Turks. These included provincial governors, Palace officials and the Freemasons. According to Hanioglü, M. Şükrü, the activism of the Freemasons in the Ottoman Empire can be traced back to the 1870s.1 All things considered, it’s hard to imagine how the current regime in Israel could be an improvement over Ottoman ‘absolutism’.
But we still need to explain how the Jewish people became entangled in Palestine. The Young Turks, Turkish Jöntürkler, was a coalition of various reform groups that led a revolutionary movement against Sultan Abdulhamid II between 1889 and 1908. During the British Mandate in the Ottoman Empire, there were rumors that the Jews were involved with the Young Turks and Freemasons.2 The British overseers apparently believed the rumors about Jewish involvement, and later this belief rendered Britain defenseless against the idea of Zionism. Then, World War II and the Holocaust made Palestine seem like an attractive refuge from the world’s hatred. Today, modern Israel is evidence that the fear of being hated, was never dealt with.
Plans for a Palestinian State are based on the wrong premise
In the face of Israel’s brittle militarism, it is clear that any solution would have to heal the effects of ostracism and persecution on its victims. However, that kind of thoughtfulness is unheard of in this world. Victims are expected to figure everything out on their own. This blindspot has allow Zionism to ruin the Jewish people. All we can say is that if we had had our wish this would have been the first step to a solution. Instead, we have the present horror.
Considering that a Jewish state was not the solution to the real problem of anti-Semitism, it follows that even our best utopian plans for a Palestinian state are based on the wrong premise.
Since we insist on ignoring the step of healing, the only other solution would require the ability to go back in time and tell the Freemasons and Young Turks to appreciate what they have. This is obviously ridiculous, but what do you call the belief that Israel will some day give the Palestinians a state?
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are dying and all the grownups in the world have gone mad. And they’ve had plenty of assistance in their madness from contemporary Zionists. So, what can be done? It may seem like wishful thinking, but the first solution remains a possibility.
This might seem like the biggest fantasy of all. Hatred pretends to erase the possibility of healing. However, hatred is not all-powerful. Love is the most powerful force on this planet, and it is always a possibility. Furthermore, the hope for love never dies in the hearts and minds of the most despised among us.
Can God see the Palestinians through our eyes?
When there seems to be no earthly help for the helpless, it’s natural for believers to petition God. What can he do, you ask? After all, the existence of modern Israel is based on religious ‘history’ and defended by the United States and its allies. Who would petition God on the side of Israel’s enemy? The answer depends on your understanding of God.
I saw a video on YouTube. There were several Palestinians standing in line. They had no baggage of any kind– just the clothes on their backs. One man was looking at the camera as it recorded his defeat. His eyes were not asking for anything, or even hoping for anything. I saw this and understood it, and it took my breath away.
I don’t think God sees everything with his own eyes. Sometimes he sees through our eyes. It occurred to me that God saw those people like I did, and he had compassion for them.
I’m not suggesting God is choosing sides. I think he he saw those Palestinians and their need, and he is going to help them.
Hanioglü, M. “Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons, 1875-1908.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, 1989, pp. 186–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283298. Accessed 17 Oct. 2023. ↩︎
The world blames Israel for what has happened to the Palestinians. However, Israel’s inhabitants are pawns. This is the trap of Zionism. Zionism has ruined the Jewish people.
Immigration has become the norm. What are we going to do about it? For immigrants, immigration is not a choice. It’s life and death. It’s always been that way in the United States. However, as war, climate change and natural disasters continue to destroy living conditions for millions of people, even those in favor of accepting immigrants may fear that it requires a bigger commitment than they are prepared to make. If a public figure adds to that fear by lying about the dangers posed by immigrants, these same people might change their minds about immigration. They might even vote for that public figure, hoping he will protect them from this great danger. I want to challenge the notion that they have to depend on self-serving politicians for information about immigration.
Why worry about same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies? This article is not a rejection of same-sex partners and trans people. It’s a request for the missing narrative about hetrosexual relations and how they affect social organization. Currently it is being drowned out by a particular version of a patriarchal narrative.
It is more helpful to talk about heterosexual relations
The problem is one of focus and proportion. If this conversation is supposed to be about organizing a just society for our children and grandchildren, the same-sex marriage and trans-rights movements should not be dominating it. But the goal of this article is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. It is to supply the missing parts of the conversation. Women need to talk about heterosexual relations and marriage. Failing to recognize this need assures that an agenda will be imposed on them, and therefore on their posterity. Unfortunately, the female role is recognized and valued by the powers that be, much more than it’s valued by women themselves.
Same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies: an imposition on women
Gay and trans people deserve freedom from violence and discrimination, but this can be said about every minority group in the world. We all deserve freedom from violence and discrimination–even women. However, same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies have not only taken over the conversation, they currently dominate the conversation. The overall effect is an imposition on women.
Same-sex marriage increases the market for adopted and surrogate children; trans-ideology tells women they have no right to deny biological men access to women’s spaces. Women don’t even have a right to tell biological men they are men. The trans-rights movement appears to be in a state of denial. It is women who will create the families of the future. However, it may not be denial at all. Appearances can be deceiving.
An over-emphasis on Same-sex marriage and trans ideologies, and an underemphasis on women is anti-social and unsustainable.
How are these movements anti-social? Women are the center of family relations. Movements that impose on women while refusing to admit this imposition are antisocial. How are they unsustainable? They are unsustainable because they depend on the misfortune of other people, especially women.
The anti-social aspects of the trans movement include biological men invading women’s spaces and women’s sports. The anti-social potential of same-sex marriage comes about when the partners feel entitled to adopt children. This potential may be increased by same-sex marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage makes a son’s homosexuality more acceptable to his parents. It can be argued that this is a positive effect. However, it goes too far. Same-sex marriage equalizes the son’s social status with heterosexual marriage, and indicates to his parents that there will be grandchildren. This might seem to improve relations within that particular family, but it imposes on other families. There is a potential for adoption regardless of whether same-sex couples really want children. Same-sex partners may not choose to adopt without family pressure.
Taking heterosexual relations for granted is the real problem.
If we believe these movements are anti-social and unsustainable, what can we do about them? That is probably the wrong question. I believe these movements are dominating the conversation because heterosexual relations are taken for granted. Women take them for granted at least as much as men do. In fact, it’s likely that women take heterosexual relations for granted to a much greater degree.
Women need a conversation about heterosexual relations and marriage in general, preferably with input from the parents of women. I propose the following key factors in a properly organized society: marriage customs which involve parents and which are understood by each family in a community; an economy that does not extract excess wealth from the citizenry; a cleansing of racist and misogynistic beliefs and doctrines. They could also set priorities. For example:
Marriage customs within the family must include financial protection for brides and their future children. This requires a citizenry that can hold on to its wealth.
If the citizenry is to hold on to its wealth, the modern state must go. The modern state is structured to extract wealth from the people.
The influence of the Greeks, starting at least as early as Plato, must be purged from our religion, education, and philosophy. Greek influence is imperialistic and misogynistic. At its core is a disguised rivalry between patriarchy and motherhood.
Change must start with families
The goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. The goal is to focus on heterosexual relations. Several posts will be necessary to expand on these factors. Unfortunately, even though the conservative ruling class claims to support traditional families it is likely they will not support this. And in my opinion, we should not be under any illusions that we can prevail in the event of a debate. Then what am I suggesting?
Why worry about same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies? I believe they are a symptom. I’m arguing that the problems we face today cannot be solved under our present cultural, social and economic conditions. If we don’t understand this, our efforts will be a waste of time and energy. We may be able to implement smaller measures, but even under the best scenario we will still be left with the system that led us to this place. The goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. The goal is for women, (and the parents of women) to supply the missing narrative about heterosexual relations and marriage, and how these relations influence society
Harold Kaplan said ‘humanist aspirations’ are the dominant American intellectual tradition. 1 But an abstract notion of democratic humanism is only part of the story. Kaplan explains democratic humanism in the context of writers of the American classics: Emerson, Thoreau, Cooper, Poe, D. H. Lawrence, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, Twain, and Henry James. They composed the American classics and the poetry of democracy, and in their works we see hints of the strange continent that confronted them. (more…)
A neoconservative attempt at self-perpetuation can be seen in two of the Star Trek series. According to David Greven, the Enterprise series is the first Trek series to openly break with Trek’s core liberal values. Regardless of whether this was intended to manipulate, this is just one influence driving American culture to the right. It’s likely that popular culture is being used to manipulate the public.
“Enterprise appears to be a Trek series for those who felt Trek had undergone an appallingly ‘sensitive’ makeover in its incarnations of the late-80s and 1990s… “
According to Harold Kaplan, Americans do not question the effects on the United States of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But was the Enlightenment a democratic movement? Kaplan wrote:
“We do not question that the twin roots of American national history were the religious revolution, which broke the Catholic hegemony, and the secular Enlightenment, which finally broke the traditional political structures, monarchical and hierarchical, of Europe…” (p. 14)
((Harold Kaplan, Democratic Humanism and American Literature, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1972, p. 14))
Plato has ruled the world for 2500 years through his lasting influence on philosophy, politics, and religion. It’s time we paid attention to what he actually said. He is considered an authority on politics, even though in his lifetime, his writings were not compatible with the politics of his home country, Athens. Some of the worst attitudes of the modern world can be traced to him. He proposed a so-called link between societal ‘decay’ and race. He was also a misogynist. And yet he can’t be easily discarded. He is too much a part of us. Instead, I believe his influence has to be explored, discussed, and evaluated for its usefulness to contemporary society.
This article proposes that we live under the influence of bourgeois (middle class) manipulation, examining how the bourgeoisie might manipulate society to serve their interests.
In a previous article I questioned whether we, the voters, owe anything to the Enlightenment or to the Enlightenment’s champions, the Freemasons. Since Enlightenment ideals helped pave the way to modern democracy, this led me to wonder what it means for our republic if we question these things. What does democracy owe to the Enlightenment and Freemasonry?
The Bourgeoisie Takes Power
It was evident that Enlightenment democracy was not for all of the people as soon as the bourgeoisie achieved independence from the English aristocracy. They immediately began to oppress the less privileged. They began by taking over the commons and literally fencing out people who had depended on the commons for their livelihood. Anyone found in these enclosures was suddenly considered ‘poachers’ and given severe punishments, including hanging.
The Commons
This supports the premise that bourgeois manipulation replaced monarchy. My question is, what does that mean for the people’s ability to imagine a new type of society? One might conclude that any cultural attributes we have were manufactured by the privileged classes, many of whom mistrusted the masses and feared an ‘excess’ of democracy. We are defined by ‘them’.
But Don’t Workers Imagine a New Type of Society?
Some might argue that they identify as workers and they imagine a time when they will own the companies. However, that implies continued dependence on those companies, not to mention a similar worldview. The category is too restrictive because it doesn’t take in all of life. For one thing, it doesn’t consider the type of work or how it fits into a larger worldview. Or even what that larger worldview might be. This vision might even be said to replace or suppress other manifestations of human culture. However, the most important fact may be that the category itself is not stable.
The Very Category of Worker is Considered Expendable
The plan to win back worker’s rights is premised on the fabled post-war boom. But the post-war workers’ boom took place during a time of industrial strength, which no longer exists. Without industry there are no jobs. If there are no jobs, there are no workers.
The category of workers only exists in relationship to industries. Unfortunately, workers have never resisted the general trends in industrial activity. They have always fought for working conditions and monetary compensation within the system. The flaw in that approach becomes evident with the rise of automation and artificial intelligence.
The tendency of technology to replace workers is a contemporary version of the enclosure system in that it ignores the plight of the humans who are affected. The working class has not risen to the challenge of criticizing this in a meaningful way, which has a lot to do with the failure to develop a larger worldview. Real meaning must be based on a livable future for all the creatures on the planet.
The Bourgeois Class Thinks the New Age Will Belong to Them.
Will the bourgeois class maintain its safe position in the new age? Probably not in the way they imagine. If a recent video is any indication, they believe they will morph into the leaders of the new age. This video, Changing of the Gods, seems based on an assumption of the establishment’s continuing control. Under this assumption, recent history becomes a series of signposts on the way to an identical worldview. Consider, for example, their treatment of the rise of feminism. It includes a clip of feminist CFR member, Gloria Steinem.
error: Content is protected !!
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
