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…)Category: Foundations
Unspoken questions wind their way through the national conversation. Where are we going? What can we expect in the future? Will we survive? How can we prepare? Anxiety is increased by omens in the sky and the weather. In myth and religion we hope to find promises and instructions. We hope to rediscover our foundations. But we also find lamentations. We are not children who deny the possibility of destruction and death. Not now. The worst is already upon us. We’ve seen families swept away in the flood and burned in the fire. Let’s face the future like wise men and women. Let’s sit down together like elders of the tribe. Let’s mourn what is lost and love what remains.
-
Christian Zionism Explains Everything
Reading Time: 4 minutes -
In Gaza Death Comes for Everyone
Reading Time: 2 minutesIn 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.
-
Why Worry About Same-Sex Marriage and Trans-ideologies?
Reading Time: 4 minutesWhy 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
-
Bourgeoisie Manipulation
Reading Time: 3 minutesThis 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.
-
Question the Far-Right’s Claim to God’s Favor
Reading Time: 4 minutesThe right wing’s narrative describes a world in which evangelical Christians and their allies have God on their side. Normally I wouldn’t disagree–according to Christian doctrine, God is on the side of the human race. But they are actually saying God approves of their politics. They apparently assume this will convince believers to vote for them and paint the political opposition as evil. In my opinion, the left must respect religion enough to question the far-right’s claim to God’s favor. This doesn’t require a personal calling from God. It just requires the patience to listen to the far-right’s claims and compare them to the Bible.
Since Evangelical Christians believe Donald Trump is a messianic figure, the relevant verses would be those that refer to the messianic age. In Ezekiel 47 the Lord God showed Ezekiel a vision of abundance and blessing and joy.
Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.
Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.
And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ankles.
Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.
Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.
And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.
Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live wither the river cometh.
And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from En-gedi even unto En-eglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.((Ezekiel 47:1-11))
Ezekiel is then told that the fruit of the trees will be for meat and the leaf will be for medicine. The leaf will not fade and the fruit will never be consumed because their waters issued out of the sanctuary. And finally, the Lord God describes the borders whereby the twelve tribes of Israel will inherit the land. This is not a Zionists’ dream, however. At least not the Zionists we know. Nor is it the dream of American wall-builders and imprisoners of immigrant children.
And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God.((Ezekiel 47:22,23))
This does not sound like Donald Trump and his supporters at all. Instead, it seems to describe the hopes of progressive supporters of Bernie Sanders.
Some say the Son of man is not a single person. The Son of man is a collective. Of course, Bernie has no intention of being a messiah. You may recall the day he waved away Birdie Sanders, the bird that landed on his podium during a campaign speech. He is a politician after all, not a religious leader. But what about the rest of us? We thought for a few glorious moments we saw the end of the old regime, and we projected all our hopes on this amazing candidate who appeared out of nowhere. And they were hopes of peace and fairness and inclusion.
See also: The Israel Lobby is Spending Millions to Defeat Progressive Democrats https://youtu.be/djZVm1n_XNA
Is the GOP Morphing into Christian Nationalism? https://youtu.be/kQQd90mbbDs
Reverend Calls Out Marjorie Greene https://youtu.be/OExYtrfXotQ
Lauren Boebert Wants a Biblical Citizenship Test https://youtu.be/oDQyj8C8PoE
American Heretics: The Politics of the Gospel (Christian Nationalism Documentary) https://youtu.be/B-ePCiUgD0Y
The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
The Psychology of Christian Nationalism https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
Baptist Leader Speaks Out: Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity https://youtu.be/vZukWuT9lcA
-
Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Enabler
Reading Time: 2 minutesThe Republicans have spent decades trying to repeal Roe v Wade. They were out of step with reality when they started. Now that their cherished conservative dream has finally come true, they are even more out of step with reality. Although Republican madness is obvious to millions of people, five conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme enabler who voted to repeal Roe v Wade, are bursting with pride. Pro-life organizations are also touting this as a victory. Their stupidity is exceeded only by their short-sightedness.
The decision to repeal Roe v Wade was made with the help of a doctrine called Originalism. It’s not clear if anyone really believes in Originalism, least of all, its inventors in the Federalist Society, but it doesn’t matter. It has been very useful for conservatives who are intent on getting their way. In fact, that has become the definition of conservatism: People who are intent on getting their way. If only their ‘way’ was good.
What is Originalism anyway? In the 1980s John M. Olin set up the Federalist society and paid it to make the courts rule in his favor in cases involving his polluting company. The Society promptly wined and dined judges, sponsored university courses to teach Originalism, and generally helped Olin avoid the nasty consequences of his polluting ways. Amy Coney Barrett has been a member of the Federalist Society twice. Nevertheless, the blind and the stupid applaud her latest ruling.
What does Originalism say? It says that the original public meaning of the constitution is binding today. Given that the people who wrote the Constitution saw the world very differently than we do today, it is reasonable to fear that this doctrine will have regressive and oppressive effects on American society. Confronted with this fact, Originalists agree that some amendments to the Constitution might be in order, but the constitution has to be amended democratically. Democratic principles are the basis of their doctrine after all.
There are a few problems with this defense. The media is not democratic. Neither is the electoral system. If they were people of good will, Originalists would assure themselves that democratic institutions and principles are working before they impose binding meanings on their society. But although Originalists claim neutrality, they act as if the proper functioning of democratic institutions is beside the point. In fact, they deliberately weaken those institutions. That is not a neutral position.
This shady, cut-rate, half-baked doctrine is not the sum total of the problem. There is also the dishonesty and irresponsibility of the politicians who foisted Originalist justices on the Supreme Court, in plain sight of the people whose democracy they have stolen. Last but not least there are the simple, lazy, complicit souls who have failed to develop their capacity for discernment.
-
Lords of Chaos on the Supreme Court
Reading Time: 2 minutesIt seems the Supreme Court Justices are lords of chaos. Leaking the Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade was like waving a red cape in front of a bull, or a MAGA cap in front of a progressive. It has brought out the worst in progressives and put anything good we might have done on hold. Of course, this follows the sudden and meaningless war in Ukraine. This has been a disaster for the progressive conversation.
The Roe v Wade leak is not just about abortion, just like the Ukraine War is not just about Ukraine. They both serve to drag your attention away from climate change, voting rights, and anything else that needs your attention. The lords of chaos want to stop you from having a coherent conversation.
I saw a clip today in which pro-life agitators goaded pro-choice protesters into a frenzy. How they relished taunting those women. How they loved rubbing it in! How they basked in their Supreme Court ‘victory’. Then the pro-choice protesters screamed their slogans a little louder, and the pro-lifers drowned them out anyway. What a glorious hate-fest! And all because the lords of chaos on the Court leaked an opinion that hasn’t been decided yet.
Sewing chaos and division has been the establishment’s favorite tactic since that first Trump rally was shut down by Sanders’s supporters in 2016. They try to get both sides all riled up, or afraid, or confused, or all of the above. They know if they can make us fear and hate each other, we will be ineffective.
The lords of chaos on the Supreme Court may very well undo Roe v Wade, and the harm for women will be real. But if the leak brings lasting hatred and confusion and division, it will have served its main purpose. As long as we’re fighting each other, we can’t fight them.
See Also: https://youtu.be/_d0URbems8M
-
Republicans Don’t Want to Reverse Roe v Wade
Reading Time: < 1 minuteRoe v Wade has been a gift to the Republican Party. A candidate can be a war monger, a corporate puppet, and eat puppies and kittens for breakfast, but if he or she is pro-life none of that will matter to conservative voters. Another candidate can have a great plan for the economy and a sterling political record, but if she is pro-choice a large portion of the American electorate will never vote for her. What would the Republicans do without Roe v Wade?
They use abortion to get votes the same way they use the bad behavior of foreign leaders to justify military intervention. Their rhetoric implies that pro-choice voters are baby-hating monsters while it promotes suspicion of every woman of child-bearing age. And votes are just one part of the story. The abortion issue allows them to co-opt the conversation with constant threats, horror stories, and authoritarian legislation. As a result, reasonable people find themselves fighting for the rights of women they don’t know, as if abortion is some kind of prize.
Some judges have said they will not enforce Alabama’s law, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) is on record saying the legislation is so severe he is concerned that it won’t be effective in overturning Roe v Wade. Maybe that is the purpose of Alabama’s extreme approach. Republicans don’t want to reverse Roe v Wade.
-
The Seducer State and the Free Labor of Mothers
Reading Time: < 1 minutePaul Ryan told American women in a televised speech that they must bear more children. Because this speech closely followed the passage of the scandalous tax bill that reduces taxes for the rich and therefore endangers funding for social programs that help mothers, Ryan’s proposal demonstrates the connection between the seducer state and the free labor of mothers.
The following video from Chris Hedges’ On Contact discusses government policies, which are meant to increase the birthrate in the face of decreasing financial support for families.
-
Will a Higher Birthrate Lead to a Better Society?
Reading Time: 2 minutesThe very government that nags us to increase the birthrate squeezes the unfortunate among us and gives benefits to the rich. So, will a higher birthrate lead to a better society, as a certain bishop has claimed? I doubt it.
The question should be, will it lead to love and compassion in the government? Our government’s main interest is in eliminating or privatizing the social security program. And it has demonstrated that it has every intention of reducing social spending. It has also indicated that it is willing to destroy the very earth on which we depend. And yet politicians like Paul Ryan continue to demand a higher birthrate.
From the government’s point of view there are several benefits to overpopulation: It provides a broad tax base; it leads to high unemployment and a large pool of low-wage workers; and it provides more children for the adoption mill.
I’m not claiming the ability to read Paul Ryan’s mind, but regardless of his reasons we know that he, or his donors, expect benefits from a higher birthrate. We know this because even though they favor reducing other types of benefits they re willing to increase the Child Tax Credit. That’s why I view the Child Tax Credit as the modern version of bridewealth. But unlike bridewealth, the CTC is not a gift.
The CTC is permission for women who bear and raise children to keep a little more of the money they would otherwise give to the government in taxes. When you compare this to the spirit behind the practice of bridewealth the cynicism is remarkable.
However, there is good news. It is merely a financial offer, meaning that women are free to take it or leave it. The big guns in this fight are ideological, and the chief ideological proposition is unspoken: human procreation is a virtue. Our first question should be, how (and why) did large families become a virtue?
Additional claims stem from this proposition. These include: large families are an act of solidarity with the human race; large families are an act of love and compassion; and a shrinking birthrate indicates that the whole society is giving up on humanity.
If you accept the first assumption the rest might make perfect sense, but is it true? This is an important question because these kinds of arguments have an effect. What we need is evidence–perhaps we could start with a series of surveys.