Our Season of Creation

  • Reading Time: 3 minutes

    Was the Enlightenment democratic? According to Harold Kaplan, Americans accept without question the effects on the United States of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. He 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)) (T

    When I first started thinking about the social effects of America’s mythology, I questioned the religious basis of the Enlightenment. Now I’m questioning its democratic basis.There is no question that the Enlightenment made the United States possible. But there have always been concerns about its effects. Are we capable of talking about these concerns in the Enlightened United States?

    The short answer is, not necessarily. One faction of our enlightened forefathers, the federalists, wanted a continuation of Britain’s monarchy with a king-like president. Others wanted to create a new kind of government unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the new-government faction lost the debate. The best they could do was add the Bill of Rights to curb federal power.

    Although we might wish the anti-federalists had been successful, they were part of the same class as the federalists. One result of their class outlook was that they did not see a problem with inequality. They accepted slavery in particular.

    American Politics versus Enlightenment Governance

    Was the Enlightenment Democratic?

    As stated above, America’s government is an Enlightenment creation. In this light, it was interesting to discover that during the 2016 presidential election that we are not allowed to elect our chosen presidential candidate. After loudly objecting to our defeat, most of us accepted our limitations, unlike the Trump faction. That’s who we are.

    Trump

    Trump’s base apparently missed that demonstration of how democracy works. He used our act of good will to promote himself. Now we are observing billionaires and Freemasons trying to claw back democracy, and Trump’s supporters don’t bat an eye.

    You could say the aftermath of the 2020 election has been a Free-masonic temper tantrum. And it’s not going away. Freemasonry is part of our political history. The important lesson here is that our system offered no protections against a candidate like Donald Trump.

    Biden

    On a positive note, the Biden Administration has responded to many of our demands. It’s not what we envisioned in 2016. We thought a complete change of direction was needed to address climate change and the shortage of resources. But the truth is, no politician, including Bernie Sanders, can run a campaign on a platform of lower living standards and personal sacrifice. And this is what we need. If some mythical self-sacrificing candidate were to win anyway, the markets would remove him in short order.

    However, Biden’s political situation has been complicated by events in Palestine. As a recipient of AIPAC money, he supports Israel’s attack on Gaza. In addition, AIPAC is threatening to primary any political candidate who criticizes Israel’s bombing campaign. And our government does not object. Perhaps the most worrying part of this is that it is taking place over the objections of people all over the world. This is another lesson about American politics.

    Class Structure Was Here From the Beginning

    America has always had distinct social classes but no one bothers to explain how this came about. Immigration, of course. Groups immigrating to the colonies included Puritans (religious fundamentalists), Quakers (religious liberals), and Borderers. This last group wanted personal liberty without interference from society or government. But the largest group of English immigrants to the United States arrived between the years 1642 to 1675. They consisted of 45,000 Cavaliers of King Charles I, and their indentured servants. They had lost their former status in England because they were on the losing side in the English Civil War. However, they remained royalist, Anglican and Aristocratic.

    Some say they wanted to re-create in Virginia the hierarchal, farming society they had left behind. When their servants began to die, the Cavaliers’ descendants imported African slaves. Cavalier immigrants included ancestors of George Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, John Marshall, and other first families of Virginia.

    The descendants of the Cavaliers only stopped supporting the Stuart kings during the reign of Charles II. They turned against Charles because he appointed his own people to offices in Virginia and gave cultivated land to his favorites, among other injustices.

    Summary

    Was the Enlightenment a democratic movement? Not as much as it could have been. It seems Ben Franklin was not quite honest when he said democracy is ours if we can keep it. It is reasonable to question our form of government and the Enlightenment ideals that made it possible.

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes
    Gaza's Natural Gas Field

    Control of gas and oil supplies is an important focus of Israel’s U.S. ‘protectors’. It appears this is a large motivation for the bombing of Gaza. The story of Gaza’s natural gas field and the U.S. military are missing in reporting of the bombing of Gaza. A natural gas field was discovered off the Coast of Gaza in 1999 by BG Group, a multinational oil and gas company headquartered in Reading, United Kingdom. And this gas field is not the only one on Israel’s radar.

    Secret U.S. military base(s) are also missing from the story of the bombing of Gaza

    It has come to light that the United States has a military base in Israel. This was reported in the Jewish Virtual Library. JVL sources were listed as Barbara Opall-Rome of the Defense News and The Washington Post. The Post’s article is no longer on its website. Actually, there is more than one. The chronology is complicated and will be discussed in more detail below.

    Israel is claiming rights to several gas fields, but who really owns them?

    Several gas fields have been discovered off the Mediterranean coast in recent decades. In fact, while the Israelis were bombing Gaza, Israel granted twelve licenses to six companies to explore for natural gas in that area. Total oil and gas reserves were valued at $524 billion in 2019. 

    But did Israel have a right to award these licenses? According to a UN report, Israel is not entitled to all of the gas. Some of the reserves are in the occupied territory of Palestine. Much of the rest is outside of national borders and should be shared with relevant parties. In fact, the UN report questioned whether Israel has a right to any of it. After all, the gas fields took millions of years to form and the Palestinians occupied the entire territory of Palestine for thousands of years before the Israelis arrived.

    The question of the hour is, who owns this particular gas field off the Gaza coast? It won’t be surprising to anyone that the majority owner, the Palestinian people, have no access to its income.

    Gaza swims with sharks

    The Palestine National Authority has maritime jurisdiction up to 20 nautical miles off of Gaza’s coast. This is according to the Oslo II Accords. The PNA signed a 25-year contract for gas exploration off the Gaza coast with BGG in November 1999. Long story short, Gaza ended up with nothing. Here are the details as described by Rachel Donald of Planet Critical.

    Ehud Barak

    Palestine’s Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Barak, authorized BGG to drill the first well in July 2000. And of course, BGG struck gas. Then Palestine and Israel began to negotiate. They agreed on a deal that was thought to be fair to both Israeli demand and Palestinian supply. But then…

    Arial Sharon

    Arial Sharon became Prime Minister. His government rejected a supply deal between the Palestinian gas field and the state-owned Israel Electric Corporation.

    Tony Blair to the rescue

    Enter UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2002. As a result of Blair’s influence, Sharon agreed to negotiate an agreement. He agreed to take an annual supply of 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian gas for a period of 10 to 15 years. But in 2003 Sharon decided the money might be used for terrorism. So he changed his mind.

    Hamas scuttles a new deal with Ehud Olmert

    Ehud Olmert’s government made a new deal with the Palestinians that was supposed to start in 2009. Israel would purchase 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian gas for $4 billion annually. However, the 2007 Battle of Gaza changed the deal again. This battle began when Hamas took control of the strip. They supposedly did this because they wanted to increase the original 10% Palestinian share in the BGG deal.

    I have no inside knowledge of Hamas’s motivation. However, In my opinion it is curious that an attack by Hamas also justified Israel’s 2023 bombing campaign. In both cases Israel benefitted by claiming entitlement to self-serving retributions. In 2023, Israel took the opportunity to award exploration licenses off the Mediterranean Coast. Now back to the saga of Palestine’s gas field.

    Israel nullifies the 1999 contract that BG Group, the Palestinian government and the PNA agreed to

    An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Government of Israel to formulate a deal with BGG, bypassing both the Palestinian government and PNA. This nullified the contract signed in 1999 between BGG and PNA. However, in December 2007, BGG withdrew from negotiations with the Israeli government.

    In 2008, Israel belatedly tries to restart negotiations with BGG

    In June 2008, the Israeli government recontacted BGG to urgently renegotiate the deal. But it seems this was a cover for at attack on Gaza, which was already planned. The UN report states: “The decision to speed up negotiations with BGG coincided, chronologically, with the planning of an Israeli military operation in Gaza, whereby it would appear that the Government of Israel wished to reach an agreement with BGG prior to the military operation, which was already in an advanced planning stage.”

    Israel confiscates Palestinian gas fields in 2008 invasion of Gaza

    The invasion of Gaza by Israel in December 2008 brought the Palestinian gas fields under Israeli control—without regard for international law. Israel’s government has been dealing with BGG ever since. The UN estimates billions of dollars in loss for the Palestinian people.

    The military base(s)

    According to the Jewish Virtual Library and Defense News, there is a new U.S. military base located  at the Israel Defense Forces Air Defense School near Beersheba. When construction began in 2017, its stated purpose was to support a contingent of soldiers who would operate systems to help Israel defend against rocket and missile attack. In this base, the plan was for U.S. soldiers and Israeli airmen to be living and working side-by-side. But these articles also mention a U.S. independent facility in the same general area of Israel’s Negev desert.

    Pentagon awards contract for expansion of the joint base in August 2023.

    The dates reported by the various websites are confusing. I believe construction of the joint U.S. and Israeli facility began September 16, 2017, while Donald Trump was in the Whitehouse. The JVL says ground was broken for the initial construction in 2017. And this one seems to be the one that was expanded in 2023. But before this base was built, the U.S. already had a military base in Israel.

    Making sense of the dates

    The Intercept says the Pentagon awarded a multimillion-dollar contract for construction of a base in August 2023. However, this contract must have been for its expansion, because the JVL and Defense News says construction was begun in 2017.

    At that time, the U.S. had another military site independent of Israel that was not the subject of an expansion. The Intercept was able to report the monetary value of this older site because it was mentioned in an August 2 contract announcement by the Pentagon. The intercept reports that this site is a $35.8 million U.S. troop facility.

    The two sites share a code name

    The U.S. military has operated this independent facility for more than a decade in the same general area of Israel’s Negev desert, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, Defense News and the Intercept. But Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw of the Intercept report that both sites are part of code-named Site 512.

    The Americans operate the independent site without an Israeli presence. Its purpose is to house the U.S. AN/TPY-2, an X-Band radar that is integrated with Israeli search and track radars to augment early warning in the event of ballistic missile attack from Iran. The Intercept article specuates that these sites did not warn against the Hamas attack because they were focused in Iran.

    One of Israel’s Iron Dome systems is in the U.S.

    One of Israel’s operational Iron Dome systems is now in the U.S., according to the Defense News article. It is competing with U.S.-proposed systems as a possible solution to the medium and short-range air defense requirement.

  • Reading Time: 4 minutes

    If you’ve wondered during the last twenty years at the overheated rhetoric of both Israel and the Western powers, Dr. Stephan Sizer will connect the dots in a video entitled The Historical Roots of Christian Zionism, It’s Theological Basis and Political Agenda. According to Sizer, Christian Zionism is the culprit behind the militant turn. Christian Zionism explains everything.

    (more…)
  • Reading Time: 8 minutes

    We have high expectations for Israel. Are they realistic?

    Judaism or Zionism?

    We are outraged about the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians. At the same time, atrocities that are happening in other parts of the world don’t demand our attention. Apparently, we have high expectations for Israel. The question is, are these expectations realistic?

    (more…)
  • Reading Time: 2 minutes
    Ukraine is a lost cause
    The Destruction of Ukraine

    Jeffrey Sachs says Ukraine is a lost cause. Please watch his interview regarding Ukraine. The United States’s maneuvering has led step by step to war and the destruction of Ukraine. The entire Russia/Ukraine War is the result of a U.S. regime change venture, courtesy of U.S. neoconservatives, namely, President Biden, Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan.

    When Victoria Nuland first discussed replacing the Ukrainian president, she was motivated by the fact that President Yanukovich had passed a neutrality agreement to head off war. The Biden administration chose war instead. Nuland’s meddling is common knowledge–her phone call was intercepted by the Russians and replayed in the U.S. Even so, there were several opportunities to avoid this war before it started, and the Americans refused to try.

    On December 17, 2021 President Putin put on the table a draft U.S. Russia security agreement to avert the war. The agreement called for several things but the most important was an end to NATO enlargement. Jeffrey Sachs urged Biden to negotiate at that time, but the U.S. declared that the expansion of NATO is none of Russia’s business. Subsequently, Zalinski called for negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality, but the U.S. blocked negotiations.

    This video lays out in more detail the reasons Jeffrey Sachs says Ukraine is a lost cause. The transcript is included in the video notes. Please take note of the steps that must follow the end of hostilities for true peace with Russia.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    In Gaza death comes for everyone. On October 7, we were horrified. Hamas attacked Jewish people on the border of Israel and committed carnage. Then, we were alarmed about Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats against Gaza. We beg him not to act out his own rage and the rage of the people of Israel. But he does not hesitate to wreak havoc. Now, each bomb that falls on Gaza falls on us too. We had such great hopes for a new direction for the world. Netanyahu signals that a new direction will not start in Israel.

    Netanyahu’s Western allies have not stopped him either. They have encourage him in his course of action. So, we petitioned God to help the Palestinians. But that was before the hospitals and refugee camps were destroyed. Because he did not come to their aid, we can only hope God has taken the dead to paradise, and that he is not ignoring us as well. But that is small comfort for the loving parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles and children left behind. It is small comfort for all of us.

    If there were to be divine intervention at this time, I would fear for the Israelis. They have satiated their rage and hubris as if there is no God. Can it be that Israel will be allowed to continue? If so, we clearly do not understand. All of those people–Jews and Palestinians–have already suffered, and many have died. Nothing will undo that. What satisfaction can anyone hope for now?

    These are dark days, but they are not without purpose. Gaza tells us that Death comes for everyone. It’s time to forsake the vanity of comfort and security. It’s time to relearn that the chief purpose of this life in preparation for the next life. I’m not saying we should give up on this life. We must put this life in its place. Let’s begin.

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes

    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.

    (more…)
  • Reading Time: 4 minutes

    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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

  • Reading Time: 3 minutes

    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…)

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    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… “

    (more…)
error: Content is protected !!