Friday, May 22, 2015

Don't Fight for a Dying Regime

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Iraq War. This follows this post about alcoholism. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.


Don't Fight for a Dying Regime

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
As time goes by, troubles and disappointments will again emerge. Human nature doesn’t change and suffering will continue. President Bush’s message parallels what Jesus said when He was here on earth. He told His followers to pray, “Your kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10 Matthew 6:10Your kingdom come, Your will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
American King James Version×
). That Kingdom is yet ahead for all humanity, and when Jesus Christ returns to earth He will institute a government that will rule humanity in love and according to the laws of God. Jesus told the Roman governor Pontius Pilate at His trial: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight … but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36 John 18:36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
American King James Version×
). So God’s message to us is the same as President Bush’s advice to Iraqis: “Don’t fight for a dying regime.”When Jesus began His ministry He came into Galilee “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’ ” (Mark 1:14-15 Mark 1:14-15 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent you, and believe the gospel.
American King James Version×
). Repent means to turn—to turn from the past, to believe, to look forward to the future God planned for us. That future will be so different from what most of humanity experiences today! If we are awake to the message of the Bible, we will see that this world is a dying regime and nothing that we should fight or die for. Rather we should accept the Bible’s message and look forward to a regime change unlike anything humanity has ever experienced—the truly good government Jesus Christ will establish on earth when He returns.

Jeb Bush, Immigration, and the Iraq War!

A timely post about from www.vdare.com about Immigration and the Iraq War. This follows this post about commencement speeches, including Michelle Obama, who is highlighted by VDARE here. This follows this post about Sofia Vergara.
You can follow me here.

Knowing That Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act Elected Obama, Would Jeb Bush Repeal It?

Ann Coulter’s new book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, will be released on June 1, 2015.
Was Jeb Bush too busy watching telenovelas during his brother’s presidency to remember the Iraq War?
We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the “rush to war.”
So I remember the arguments.
Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America’s victory in Iraq, our argument wasn’t that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And the left’s argument certainly was not: “He doesn’t have any WMDs!”
Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him.
Indeed, after Bush’s State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons: “Even the rationale for war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address …” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
Among the reasons we invaded Iraq were:
(1) Saddam had given shelter to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay the price:
We’re not supposed to mention the Prague meeting on penalty of liberals yelling at us. Apparently, our CIA discounts that report. On the other hand, the CIA didn’t see the 1993 World Trade Center bombing coming, didn’t see 9/11 coming, didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre coming and didn’t see the Times Square bombing coming. No one tell liberals, but our CIA knows NOTHING—although they’re pretty sure something bad happened at Pearl Harbor a while back.
(2) Saddam had attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States. Liberals complained that it was a family feud because that president happened to be Bush’s father, but, again, he was also a FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (Does being a relative of the president make you fair game for assassination attempts? Bill Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy phone.)
(3) Saddam not only had WMDs, he had used them—far more prodigiously than Syria’s Bashar al-Assad did when Obama masterfully backed down from his “red line” threat if Assad ever used chemical weapons. (Assad’s WMDs killed about a thousand civilians—350 according to French intelligence, which is a lot better than ours. Saddam’s WMDs killed an estimated 100,000 civilians. That’s according to everyone—the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Clinton-era ambassador Peter Galbraith.)
(4) We needed to smash some Muslim strongman after the 9/11 attack, and Saddam was as good as any other—at least as good as the Taliban primitives who had allowed Osama bin Laden to pitch his tent in their godforsaken country.
It worked: Moammar Gadhafi, terrified that Bush would attack Libya next, invited U.N. inspectors in, gave up his WMDs, and paid the families of his Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.
(5) Saddam had committed atrocities on a far greater scale than our current bogeyman, ISIS. He tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis—removing their teeth with pliers, applying electric shocks to men’s genitals, drilling holes in their ankles and forcing them to watch as their wives were raped—as reported by USA Today, among others. There was no risk that we were accidentally taking out the Arab George Washington.
(6) Saddam was a dangerous and disruptive force in a crucial oil-producing region of the world. We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?
(7) The Iraqi people were a relatively sane, civilized and educated populace with a monstrous ruler. Removing that leader would provide a golden opportunity for an actual functioning Arab democracy—an Arab Israel.
That worked, too. In under two years, Iraqis were waving their purple fingers to symbolize having voted in their first democratic election. A few years after that, young Iranians were demanding their own democracy in another good people/bad rulers country.
But then an innocent 26-year-old girl, Neda, was gunned down in Tehran by the Iranian military. President Obama responded forcefully by going out for an ice cream cone. And thus ended the democratic movement in the Muslim world.
The least important reason to invade Iraq—the one that was tacked on for the sole purpose of taunting liberals over their goofy reverence for the United Nations—was that Saddam had refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in, leaving the strong impression that Iraq was chock-a-bloc with WMDs. It was the equivalent of asking where the feminists were when we invaded Afghanistan—although technically, we didn’t invade because the Taliban were mean to women.
In fact, the only time The New York Times got testy with Saddam was after the “powerful case” made by Secretary of State Colin Powell, “that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions.” (Who cares?)
Liberals didn’t mind Saddam’s sheltering terrorists, using poison gas, invading his neighbors or attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president. But Saddam had disrespected the U.N.!
Far from claiming that estimates of Saddam’s WMDs were overblown, liberals cited those very WMDs to warn America that any invasion would result in catastrophe for the Great Satan. Thus, for example:
  • The New York Times cautioned in an editorial that an invasion might create chaotic conditions, allowing “terrorists to grab biological or chemical weapons.” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
  • Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg predicted that Saddam would “use poison gas against U.S. troops.” (Jane Sutton, “Pentagon Papers’ Ellsberg Sees Deja Vu in Iraq,” Reuters, Nov. 25, 2002)
  • In the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman warned: “Once American troops set foot on Iraqi soil, they may be bombarded with poison gas.” (Steve Chapman, “What Could Go Wrong in the War With Iraq,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17, 2002)
  • The Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that if we invaded Iraq, “Saddam may well launch missiles with chemical warheads at Tel Aviv.” (Nicholas Kristof, “Flirting With Disaster,” Feb. 14, 2003)
This is why all six of Jeb Bush’s answers to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly—as well as Marco Rubio’s premeditated answer a week later—were ridiculous. It’s annoying enough having liberals invent these historical fantasies. Do our fearsome Republicans have to keep retelling them, too? If they don’t follow the news, can’t they read?
Kelly asked Bush: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”
The correct answer is:
Now that we know that a half-century of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act would result in a country where a man like Barack Obama could be elected president, and then, purely out of antipathy to America, would withdraw every last troop from Iraq, nullifying America’s victory and plunging the entire region into chaos, no, I would not bother removing dangerous despots in order to make America safer.
Instead, I would dedicate myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected president like Obama coming in and giving it away.
Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is the author of TEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.
Her most recent book is Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a Republican.Her new book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, will be released on June 1, 2015.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

What does an alcoholic look like?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about alcoholism. This follows this post about problems with Catholic priests. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.


What does an alcoholic look like?

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
People who regularly abuse alcohol as a coping mechanism for life, and those who are afflicted with the American Medical Association-defined disease of alcoholism, go to great lengths to hide their abuse or addiction. Far too often, spouses, friends and family members become unfortunate enablers, allowing the alcoholic the capacity to continue abusing.
Only an estimated 2 to 3 percent of alcoholics match the stereotyped image of a “skid row drunk,” stumbling around in an alley or under a bridge. Most alcoholics and alcohol abusers go to great length to hide the dangerous level of drinking they indulge in.
Alcohol abuse creates much broader problems than are typically formally attributed. Almost any law enforcement official or probation officer will confirm that roughly 75 percent of all crimes resulting in a prison or jail term involve alcohol in some form.
And it for certain doesn’t stop there. Alarmingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, a University of Washington study released in 2012 showed that up to 15 percent of U.S. surgeons had experienced problems with alcohol abuse. That’s higher than the 9 percent general rate of reported alcohol abuse in the American population.
One of the organizers said that it’s possible that the percent of surgeons with alcoholism is underestimated in this study. Why? Just like other abusers of alcohol, the people who were less likely to respond might have shame and fear associated with their alcohol abuse and dependence. Nobody wants that stigma.
The Talbott Recovery Center in Atlanta, Georgia, is one of the most successful rehab centers for treating physicians, nurses and other professionals struggling with alcohol and substance addictions. Their medical director stated:
“There is this issue of personality traits in our patients. Obsessive compulsive, avoidant and passive-aggressive personality are over-represented in our patient population. Our patients have a dense blind spot to the manner in which their fixed ways of thinking, behaving and dealing with real life situations interacts with their addiction and impacts their lives in many different ways” (https://www.talbottcampus.com/index.php/about-us/medical-directors-message ).
And if alcohol is “no respecter of persons” when it comes to surgeons, physicians, nurses, radiologists and other medical professionals, what does that mean for you?
As noted elsewhere in this study aid, occasional and moderate use of alcohol is permissible from a biblical perspective.
But alcohol used to mask chronic symptoms of anxiety, depression, interpersonal issues, family or work problems and other issues can quickly and decisively lead to a progressive emotional, physical and spiritual condition where things will go badly in a hurry. Let’s face facts: If you’re hiding how much you’re drinking from others (who probably at least already suspect that something’s up), then you’re already in trouble.
The good news is that being in trouble with alcohol doesn’t mean that you’re dead. But it does mean that you need to get out of denial, get honest and get help . Stop trying to fix things, to manage things, to control things. Humility, self-honesty, and surrender are on your list. The sooner you take action to start on a road to recovery, the faster things will turn around for you.
There is hope!

The Relevance Of Raspail—Visionary French Novelist Saw It Coming, Published Just Before Censorship Crackdown

An interesting article from www.vdare.com about the book "Camp of the Saints" that you can add to your summer reading. This follows this post about the Pope and immigration to Europe. This follows this post about the TPP. This follows this post about drought and immigration. This follows this post on HOW amnesty is funded in ways other than the DHS. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

The Relevance Of Raspail—Visionary French Novelist Saw It Coming, Published Just Before Censorship Crackdown

TheCampOfTheSaints[1]In 1971, Jean Raspail, then 46, was looking out his window on the French Riviera. Raspail had traveled widely in his youth and already had ten books to his credit, more than one based on his experiences with Third World peoples. France itself, under De Gaulle’s successor Georges Pompidou, was then still basking in the afterglow of postwar prosperity, the “thirty glorious years” as they are now nostalgically named. But Raspail, contemplating the Mediterranean that day, had a thought—as he explained later:
“What if they were to come?”
I did not know who they were, but it seemed inevitable to me that the numberless disinherited people of the South would, like a tidal wave, set sail one day for this opulent shore, our fortunate country’s wide-gaping frontier.
[Introduction To The 2011 French Edition]
An affluent society such as that found on the Côte d’Azur is the end-product of generations of hard work, intelligence, and self-denial. In most of the world, one or more of these elements has generally been lacking, and they cannot be made up for within a single generation, even by the coordinated efforts of an entire society, let alone by individuals. The only way for a poor person in a poor country to enjoy the fruits of prosperity within his own lifetime is to move to where they already exist. And moving is getting easier all the time.
Raspail was a man of letters, not a political analyst, and his idea quickly began to take on literary form: a dystopian novel called The Camp Of The Saints. An armada of a hundred ships setting sail from a squalid Third World slum, crammed with hungry, filthy, desperate people all bound for Europe: how would todays guilt-ridden West react?
Raspail began writing, not knowing himself where the story was headed. “I would stop in the evening,” he relates, “not knowing what would happen the next day, and the next day, to my surprise, my pencil raced unhindered over the paper. It was like that all the way to the end. If ever a book of mine was inspired, it was this one.”
Raspail says he has a picture of himself, taken just as he completed the manuscript: he looks haggard and twenty years older.
The story begins at the Belgian consulate in the slums of Calcutta. Local Catholic priests, like American Evangelicals in our own day, have been promoting the adoption of Third World children by the folks back home in Belgium as a form of “good works” and an answer to poverty. When the Belgian government realizes that 40,000 have been sent in a period of just five years, they take emergency measures to halt the flow. But this merely serves to whet the local appetite for some type of Western relief. A ragged mob swarms the consulate, ignoring protestations that no more children will be taken and defying calls to disperse. As they wait, they tell one another stories of a land of milk and honey, where rich harvests grow spontaneously in untilled fields watered by rivers brimming with fish.
The most wretched of the entire mob is the “dung man” (collecting excrement for use as fuel is an actual profession in parts of the world). He carries a malformed child on his shoulders and emerges as a leader of the mob. As a white “humanitarian aid worker” makes his way through the crowd, the dung man falls upon him, crying “Take us with you.” The man responds: “Today, I say unto you, you shall be with me in paradise.”351088[1]
(Such echoes of the New Testament are scattered throughout Raspail’s novel; the book’s title— The Camp of the Saints—is taken from Revelation 20: 8-9: “Behold the nations which are at the four corners of the earth rising up; their number is like the sand of the sea. They shall set out upon an expedition across the surface of the earth, they shall invest the camp of the saints and the beloved city.”)
The white man and the dung-gatherer lead the crowd down to the docks. The ships at anchor are dilapidated wrecks of Western origin, either left over from the days of British colonialism or bought cut-rate when European nations were finished with them. They are suitable only for river traffic. But there are many of these hulking wrecks, and some are quite large, with names such as the Calcutta Star and Star of India. The crowds swarm aboard. One hundred ships are tightly packed until they are in danger of sinking. But the weather is perfect and the seas are calm; they set sail.
Raspail outdoes the naturalism of Zola in his description of conditions onboard. The stench, the filth, the crowding, the hunger, the misery, even the casual and public fornication employed to pass the time—no detail is spared the reader.
As the flotilla passes through the straits of Ceylon, helicopters start hovering overhead—Western journalists capturing images to transmit back home.
monstrousfish
Raspail clearly enjoys himself satirizing the mawkish and impractical reaction of his countryman. He shows us French schoolteachers assigning their charges themes such as: “Describe the life of the poor, suffering souls on board the ships, and express your feelings toward their plight in detail, by imagining, for example, that one of the desperate families comes to your home and asks you to take them in.” At a press conference called to discuss the French governmental response to the events, a Minister bloviates:
The spirit of France, her particular genius, has always guided her path through the great waves of modern thought, like the noble flagship whose instinct shows her the way to go, as she plies resolutely forward, colors flying for all to see, at the head of the fleet of enlightened nations, setting their course, now left, now right, showing them how to sail into the storms spawned by the great compassionate gales of human progress….
Clearly representing Raspail’s views is the journalist Jules Machefer, publisher of La Pensée Nationale, “a poor, eight-page daily with no pictures, practically no ads, badly printed and more badly sold.” He rises to address the Minister as follows:
Monsieur Orelle, let’s suppose the Western nations go along with the government’s proposal and provide for the fleet as long as it’s off in mid-ocean. Can’t you see that you’ll simply be feeding your enemy, fattening up a million invaders? And if this fleet should reach the coast of France, and throw those million invaders out onto the beach, would the government have the courage to stand up to the very same hordes that its kindness had rescued?
The minister describes the question as “revolting” and, when Machefer persists, threatens to have him forcibly ejected from the room.
Another memorable character is Lefty journalist Clément Dio, real name Ben Suad:
Dio possessed a belligerent intellect that thrived on springs of racial hatred barely below the surface, and far more intense than anyone imagined. The journalist’s pen gave him many a size and shape, but one thing never changed: his contempt for tradition, his scorn for Western man per se, and above all the patriotic Frenchman. In column after column, [he] became, by turns, an Arab workman, snubbed and insulted; a black bricklayer, insulted by his boss; a street tough, shot in his tracks; a student terrorist; a rebel leader dispensing guerrilla justice; an incurable delinquent, victim of his genes or society’s pressures; a murderer calling for prison reform; a bishop spouting Marx in his pastoral letters; a Bengali dead of starvation….And so many more.
As the fleet approaches, Dio outdoes himself by publishing a “spectacular special on The Civilization of the Ganges”:
[It] had something for all those who thought they could think. Arts, letters, philosophy, history, medicine, morality, the family and society—everything found its way into the issue, signed by the best names in the business. Considering all the wonders the Ganges has bestowed on us already—sacred music, theater, dance, yoga, mysticism, arts and crafts, jewelry, new style in dress—the burning question, by the end of the issue, was how we could do without these folks any longer!
Indeed, the idea that Europe must help the people of the Ganges is gradually replaced by the view that Europe will be the beneficiary of “the fleet’s mission to cleanse and redeem the capitalist West.”
At the same time, the ordinary people of Southern France are clearing out, abandoning their properties and heading north. Raspail describes two rivers running through the land: “one towards the sea and the Ganges fleet, but it was merely a river of words; the second, throbbing with life, fleeing toward the interior of the country.” Throughout the novel, Raspail contrasts the many who spout sentiments without effect with the few who attempt to take responsibility for the situation.
As the fleet heads toward the Gulf of Aden (and by implication the Suez Canal), they are met by an Egyptian gunboat. Unaffected with post-colonial guilt, the Egyptians are determined not to run the risk of letting the fleet pass through their canal. First they issue a warning, then fire a warning shot; the Indian captains understand that the Egyptians mean business, and steer for the south, toward the Cape of Good Hope.
As the ships pass through South African waters, the Afrikaner government surprises the world by sending out barges full of supplies: fresh water, rice, medicines. The men of the Ganges dump everything overboard. The international press is ecstatic, running headlines such as “Blackmail in Human Despair”; “Armada Poison Plot Fails”; “Armada Dumps Rice, Keeps Self-Respect”; and (Clément Dio’s article) “No Compromise for the Ganges Refugees.”
Western leaders are certain the refugees will know how to distinguish “good whites” such as themselves from the “bad whites” of South Africa, so they prepare to meet the fleet as it passes São Tomé Island. Every church and charity in the Western world has airlifted supplies to the tiny island. Barges set out to meet the flotilla, but “it soon became clear the Ganges fleet had no intention of stopping. The India Star even seemed to change course, heading straight to ram one of the barges!”
Not everyone takes the hint:
The Papal barge held out longer than the rest, like a stubborn sheepdog prodding the flock. Abreast of the Calcutta Star, she was making her third attempt to board, when a naked cadaver, hurtling down from the deck, fell with a heavy, sickening thud at the feet of the Dominican friars. White skin, blue eyes, blond beard and hair. The man had been strangled.
The matter is hushed up.
As the fleet passes through the Straits of Gibraltar, the French President orders troops to the Mediterranean coast and prepares a tough-talking address to the nation: “Cowardice toward the weak is cowardice at its most subtle and, indeed, its most deadly.”
But in the middle of delivering it, he breaks down; he abandons his prepared text and leaves the soldiers free to follow their own consciences. Some do not even wait. Even before he speaks, soldiers are deserting their posts, fleeing inland with everyone else. As the hordes descend from the ships and stampede over the beach, the last troops fire a single machine gun blast and take to their heels.
These whites take refuge in a tiny nearby village where they receive a warm welcome by a stubborn old man who has chosen to remain and make his last stand at his home. The atmosphere of comradeship is remarkable:
[Calguès] seemed to know just what the colonel was thinking. And why not? Partaking of the same community of thought, it was no surprise that they should understand each other. That was part of the Western genius, too: a mannered mentality, a collusion of aesthetes, a conspiracy of caste, a good-natured indifference to the crass and the common. With so few left now to share in its virtues, the current passed all the more easily between them.
They live out a brief idyll, sharing good food and fellowship, picking off the occasional intruder with their guns.
Interestingly, they are joined by an Indian, Hamadura, from Pondicherry, long a French enclave. He says: “You don’t know my people: the squalor, the superstitions, the fatalistic sloth they’ve wallowed in for generations. You don’t know what you’re in for if that fleet of brutes ever lands in your lap! Everything will change in this country of yours.” Later, he observes: “To my way of thinking, being white isn’t really a question of color. It’s a whole mental outlook.”
Within a few days, however, fifty-four airplanes descend on their little village, on the orders of a certain “Provisional Government of the Paris Multiracial Commune,” and they are buried beneath the rubble.
Camp of the Saints was brought out in January 1973 by the well-known French publishing house of Robert Laffont. Laffont himself took a strong personal interest in the work, and expected it to become a bestseller. The initial print run was twenty thousand copies, but five thousand remained unsold after a year. The Left wing press maintained a studied silence, the officially conservative Figaro panned the novel; the rest of the Right was non-committal, and just three small journals reviewed it positively. This appeared to be the end of the story.
In 1975, however, Charles Scribner’s Sons brought out an English version that did better than the French original. At about the same time, a slight rise in sales was reported in France itself, and it continued and gathered strength for weeks on end. Raspail’s novel was catching on by word of mouth.
Gradually, anecdotes began reaching the author illustrating the processes involved. The deputy mayor of one large French city kept a stack on his desk and offered a copy to everyone who visited his office. A taxi driver discussed Camp of the Saints with every passenger, as if to pass the time. If there was interest, he would offer to sell them a copy at the end of the ride. His success rate was about 50/50.
Some prominent men contacted Raspail personally to express their pleasure with the book, including playwright Jean Anouilh and demographer Alfred Sauvy, whose National Demographic Institute nowadays gets the results its political bosses desire. Raspail emphasizes the cordial responses he has gotten even from men of the Left, including François Mitterrand and Lionel Jospin:
Some have been simple thank-you notes, others go more or less into the substance of the work…but in all cases, the general tone in no way corresponds to the vituperative laws all of them have voted for with both hands.
[Jean Raspail on the Friendly Responses He Has Received From the Powerful – An excerpt from the new introduction of the latest French edition, Social Contract Press, Spring 2015]
Raspail is referring here to the Pleven Law of 1972 and its many successors, setting penalties for criticism of certain protected groups, including immigrants. Camp of the Saints was published a short time before this law went into effect; otherwise it would have been subject to criminal proceedings.
And the penalties attached to such laws are made more severe every few years; as I write, current Socialist President François Hollande is calling for a further round of intensification. Before the most recent French reprint (2011), Raspail had the work evaluated by a lawyer, and he found 87 passages in violation of French law; these are helpfully listed in an appendix.
Real life analogues to Camp of the Saints developed quickly. On June 6, 1993, a cargo ship called the Golden Venture ran aground at Rockaway Beach in Queens, New York, holding about three hundred illegal Chinese immigrants. (A photograph of the event is featured on the cover of the English edition of Camp of the Saints published by The Social Contract Press). 41I6EMbhgJL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1]On February 20, 2001, an unidentified cargo ship with about a thousand illegal Kurdish immigrants aboard deliberately ran itself aground on the beach not fifty meters from where Raspail had written his novel twenty years before! And now, finally, a wholesale invasion of Europe is underway from sub-Saharan Africa.
But these parallels do not testify to the author’s prescience as much as does the ordinary course of immigration from Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent over the past four decades. Raspail’s story of the Ganges fleet was simply a device for heightening the drama and fitting it into a story line of a few weeks.
Raspail’s great merit is to have seen what few others did: that Europeans stand to lose control of their destiny within the lifetime of men now living.
Martin Witkerk [Email him] is an independent philosopher. A longer version of this article appears in the Spring 2015 issue of The Social Contract Magazine.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Crisis in the Catholic Church

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about problems with Catholic priests. This follows this post about Israel. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.


Crisis in the Catholic Church

by Mario Seiglie 

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
Recent revelations have rocked the foundations of the Catholic Church. The news of sexual scandals in the Roman Church has filled the headlines and airwaves around the world. Numerous priests have been indicted for sexually abusing minors and many have ended in jail. These disclosures have weakened the American Catholic Church morally, financially and institutionally.
The U.S. Catholic Church isn't alone in the crisis. Numerous priests in Ireland, Australia, Poland, France and England have also been forced to resign or are facing prison sentences. “Scandals involving priests molesting children,” says The Los Angeles Times,“have hit parishes across America-and indeed, around the world-in recent decades. Thousands of adults have come forward to say they were abused as children and many priests have been sent to jail” (“Reports of Priest's Abuse Enrage Boston Catholics,” Feb. 9, 2002, p. 1).
Just in the United States, between 2,000 and 3,000 priests have been implicated for allegedly abusing children, and as of this writing, 60 clerics have been defrocked. The Catholic Church has reportedly paid more than $1 billion to the victims.
“The crisis gathers steam day after day,” says Time magazine, “with perhaps 2,000 priests accused of abuse across the country and hot lines jamming with more victims' calls… Since the first big abuse scandal broke at a Louisiana trial in 1985…an estimated $1 billion or more [has been paid by the Catholic Church]” (“Can the Church Be Saved?” April 1, 2002, p. 30).
Tom Economus, who heads the organization, “The Linkup-Survivors of Clergy Abuse,” himself a victim of priest sexual abuse, puts the figures even higher. He reports, “In the Roman Catholic Church there are over 800 priests [who] have been removed from ministry as a result of allegations against them… One noted expert claims that there are over 5,000 priests with some type of allegation against them. If this is true, then there are at least 1,000,000 direct victims of clergy sexual abuse and between 4-6 million indirect victims in the U.S.” (“Catholic Pedophile Priests: The Effects on U.S. Society,” TheLinkup.com Web site).
Although sexual abuse of minors is not confined to clerics of the Catholic Church, the sheer numbers of lawsuits against priests and the appalling number of children victimized place this scandal in a category of its own.
The start of the recent scandal
In January 2002, a particularly scandalous case involving a Boston priest who was accused of abusing children over a 30-year span triggered a national outcry. “The scandal erupted in January in Boston,” writes The Los Angeles Times, “when it was reported that a priest who had allegedly molested more than 140 children had been transferred by superiors from parish to parish” (“Mahony's Accuser Describes History of Mental Problems,” April 7, 2002, p. 28). The priest was found guilty, sentenced to nine years in jail, and the Boston archdiocese agreed to pay up to $30 million to 86 of the victims.
As a result of this case, many other victims of clerical abuse began talking to the civil authorities or the press. Just in the Boston area, Catholic officials were forced to turn in the names of another 88 priests who were accused of sexual misconduct with minors over the last 20 or more years. Now, an additional 400 complaints of sexual abuse in the area have turned up. Thomas Groome, a Boston College professor and a prominent Catholic, said, “This is our September 11.”
Pressure from insurance companies
Recently, the Boston archdiocese said it had settled so many child sexual abuse claims against it that a multimillion-dollar insurance fund was running dry. Insurance companies have threatened to cancel their coverage for such cases and this has prompted the Catholic leadership to step up its efforts to stem the tide of lawsuits.
In Ireland, the Catholic Church has sought an agreement with the government in an attempt to mitigate the legal damages, a somewhat similar situation to what tobacco companies have tried to do to protect themselves from lawsuits in the United States.
“In hopes of deterring class-action lawsuits,” reports The Los Angeles Times, “the church in January [2002] negotiated a compensation deal with the [Irish] government. Under the deal, thousands of people who were abused in church-run schools and orphanages from the 1950s onward would be eligible for hefty payments, but only if they dropped their own lawsuits. The church pledged to contribute about $110 million, mostly in property, to a government-run compensation board. The total payout is projected to run four times that” (“Irish Lawyer to Investigate Alleged Sex Abuse by Catholic Clergy,” April 5, 2002, p. 25).
An unintentional result of the current scandal has been to reveal the vast wealth of the Catholic Church, since it has been paying huge sums of money to the victims for decades, even though many of the funds are tied to confidentiality clauses.
“The fierce scrutiny that is piercing the Church's veil of secrecy over sex is also beginning to reveal the largely hidden state of its finances. As the institution's legal and moral crisis builds, so too do the threats to its economic foundation-a foundation already under enormous strain. Cases filed to date 'are just the tip of the iceberg, and it will be a multibillion-dollar problem before it ends,' says Roderick MacLeish Jr., a Boston attorney who has represented more than 100 victims in the past decade” (“The Economic Strain on the Church,” Business Week, April 15, 2002, p. 5).
The problem of celibacy
At the heart of the problem is the age-old issue of priestly celibacy, a mandatory practice of abstaining from marriage for all Catholic clerics that was adopted in A.D. 1139 at the Second Lateran Council.
Although Catholic Church leaders deny there is a direct connection between celibacy and priest sexual abuse of minors, serious studies done by priests or former priests claim there is a direct correlation.
Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and a retired Benedictine monk who later married, conducted a 25-year study on the celibate practice of priests. He concluded back in 1995, “The Roman Catholic priesthood is in crisis. It is obvious that the crisis is sexual… The situation is far deeper and broader than most believers would like to admit, but a surprising number of church officials are aware of its true scope” ( Sex, Priests, and Power, 1995, p. 6).
How profound is the sexual crisis in the Roman Church? “In 1976,” adds Richard Sipe, “I was convinced that I had enough data to estimate that at any one time 6% of Catholic priests in the United States were having sex with minors. Since 1985 I have reviewed an additional 1,800 accusations by adults who claim that as children they were sexually abused by priests. I also have seen the histories of nearly 500 priests who are known to have abused. This further study convinces me that the celibate/sexual system as it exists fosters and produces, and will continue to produce, at a relatively stable rate, priests who sexually abuse minors…” (ibid., p. 27).
Although the news of child molestation by priests takes the headlines, the sexual problems among the Catholic clergy are far more rampant. “The sexual abuse of minors is only part of the problem” notes Sipe. “Four times as many priests involve themselves sexually with adult women, and twice the number of priests involve themselves with adult men” (ibid., p. 45).
Other experts who have studied the problem feel that Sipe's figures may be conservative and that the problem is not limited to the American priesthood. Gary Wills, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, writes, “The Jesuit sociologist Joseph Ficher credited an account of over 30% of German priests having affairs with women. Andrew Greeley says that 25% of priests under 35 are gay, half of them sexually active. Jason Berry reports seminarians telling him Greeley's numbers should be doubled [up to 50 percent]” ( Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit, 2000, p. 186).
Increasing number of homosexual priests
These figures highlight a growing trend as more homosexuals join the ranks of the Catholic priesthood.
“In some cases,” Gary Wills notes, “there have been reports of predominantly gay seminaries and homosexual climates within them that became so pronounced that heterosexual seminarians felt uncomfortable and ultimately left. Gays themselves register the change. In a survey of 101 gay priests, those ordained before 1960 remember their seminary as having been 51% gay. Those ordained after 1981 say their seminaries were 70% gay. The existence of such surveys is itself a sign of the altered condition of gays in the priesthood. Greater tolerance has made it possible to learn more about the existence and attitudes of gay priests, whose internal network was almost invisible to outsiders until recent decades…
“In fact, the admission of married men and women to the priesthood-which is bound to come anyway-may well come for the wrong reason, not because women and the community deserve this, but because of panic at the perception that the priesthood is becoming predominantly gay” (ibid., pp. 194-195).
Wills adds, “Almost all the priests who left in the massive hemorrhage of the 1970s and 1980s left to marry. The homosexual priests stayed, which meant that their proportion of the whole went up even when their absolute numbers stayed the same. And now even that absolute number is rising. Many observers suspect that John Paul's real legacy to his church is a gay priesthood” (ibid., p. 290).
Barriers that inhibit reporting
Why have reports of scandals been largely confined to the English-speaking world?
Much has to do with the more closed societies of the developing nations. Reporting such sexual abuse there is far more difficult than in the United States or Europe. “I should note here that in African, Latin, and South American cultures the 'priest's woman' and even married bishops seem to be taken for granted” (ibid., p. 72).
“The whole world has a problem,” according to Notre Dame Professor Robert Pelton, “but it gets brought into sharper perspective in the so-called First World. In Latin America, it's more difficult to challenge the Catholic Church, and so many people will say they're more worried about their next meal and these types of concerns” (“U.S. View of Scandal Not Shared by World,” The Boston Globe, April 8, 2002, p. 1).
The Boston Globe article goes on to say, “A Providence College psychology professor, the Rev. Joseph J. Guido, conducted a survey of superiors of an unspecified Catholic religious order and found that 83 percent of the North Americans were aware of an accusation of abuse against one of their priests, compared with 43 percent in Central America and the Caribbean and one-third in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America.
“'Research suggests…that the sexual abuse of children is a problem for the church everywhere,' Guido wrote in the current issue of America magazine, a Jesuit weekly. 'However,' he wrote, 'outside North America the religious order superiors were more likely to be aware of sexual misconduct by priests with adults, rather than children. In several parts of the English-speaking world, clergy sexual abuse scandals have erupted over the last two decades, costing the church hundreds of millions of dollars and immeasurable goodwill.'”
Problem can no longer be covered up
Why did it take so long to uncover what was going on?
“The Roman Catholic Church,” explains Time magazine, “is a stern hierarchy that has always kept its deliberations secret, policed itself and issued orders from the top. An obedient priest moves up in power by keeping his head down, winning rewards for bureaucratic skills and strict orthodoxy… If allegations came to diocese attention, the bishop, a power unto himself who often operated as if ordination gave him a share of the Pope's infallibility, acted as prosecutor, judge, sentencer. Desperate to retain even sinful men, as the number of priests shrank alarmingly, and ever putting the image of the Church first, bishops refined the system. Convince the family that publicity would harm the faith. Don't report to the police; don't warn the parish… And if a victim finally sued, the strategy was to admit nothing, buy silence, settle out of court and seal the deal with a confidentiality contract” (“Can the Church Be Saved?” April 1, 2002, p. 31).
Presently, the four-month-long sexual scandal has been so serious that the pope ordered all U.S. cardinals to appear before him in an attempt to stem the swelling tide of bad publicity. In a follow-up statement to the meetings, the pontiff said, “The abuse of the young is a grave symptom of a crisis affecting not only the Church but society as a whole. It is a deep-seated crisis of sexual morality, even of human relationships, and its prime victims are the family and the young. In addressing the problem of abuse with clarity and determination, the Church will help society to understand and deal with the crisis in its midst.”
“The church stopped short of developing a 'zero tolerance' policy for priests accused of sexual transgressions. The American church leaders said they would recommend a special process to defrock any priest who has become 'notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory sexual abuse of minors.' In cases that are 'not notorious' they would leave it up to the local bishop to decide if such a priest is a threat to children and should be defrocked” (Associated Press, April 24, 2002).
At the very least, this crisis will force the American segment of the Catholic Church to take stricter measures with errant priests and provide better, more open, cooperation with authorities to deal with violations of civil law. Both will be significant changes in the heretofore cloistered world of the Catholic hierarchy. WNP

HUH? For Muslim Outreach, Pope Says Nun Who Fought Islam is Example of “Fellowship w Muslims”

A very interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com about the Pope's canonization. This follows this post about Ted Cruz as a presidential candidate.This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

HUH? For Muslim Outreach, Pope Says Nun Who Fought Islam is Example of “Fellowship w Muslims”


By Debbie Schlussel
arafatthumbsupmariambaouardi

palestiniansvatican

Pope Francis Canonizes Palestinian Sister Mariam Baouadi Who Fought Off Muslim Killer; Pope Says This is “Fellowship With Muslim World”








Muslims aren’t the only ones into hijacking. The Pope did his own hijacking over the weekend as he pandered to Muslims and tried to stick yet another needle in the eye of Israel. The Pope hijacked the memory of two Arabic nuns who fought off Muslims and Islam, lying and claiming they actually “reached out” to Muslims.
Over the weekend, Pope Francis went a step further in pandering to Catholicism’s sworn enemies in the Middle East. After first recognizing the terrorist state of Palestine, Francis canonized two Arab nuns, both of whom he claimed were “Palestinians.” In fact, for most of the time both of them were alive, there was no Palestine and as much as there was, it was JEWISH Palestine.
But even worse is the fact that these nuns faced likely death in fighting off the Muslims in what is now the Palestinian Authority, and yet the Pope omitted this fact. Even worse than that, one of the nuns is described as having “fellowship” with the Muslim world–the same world she courageously fought when it tried to forcibly convert her under threat of death.
None of this was mentioned, as the Pope hijacked her memory for the sake of pandering to the Muslim state of Palestine he now recognizes–the state where few Catholics are left as they’ve been murdered, raped, tortured, or otherwise forced to flee.
During Sunday Mass, the Pope canonized nuns Mariam Baouardy and Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas, and Vatican officials referred to the two nuns as “Palestinian.” They were not. Sister Mariam Baouardy died in 1878 and Sister Marie-Alponsine Ghattas died in 1927, long before any of the current day “Palestinians” and their ancestors even lived in the area (most “Palestinians” are from nomadic Arab families who cannot document they were ever in the area before 1948 when Israel became a state). Neither of them would fare well in the current HAMASastan in Gaza or in Yasser Arafat’s legacy Palestinian Authority.
Sister Mariam Baouardy (also spelled, Mariam Bawardy) was born in 1846 in what is now the Galilee in Northern Israel. At the time, it was considered the Southern Syrian portion of the Ottoman Empire. This area has never ever been considered part of the Palestinian State, and it is well outside the Green Line. That the Vatican and the Pope calls this Palestine says that the Vatican and the Pope don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist in any way shape or form. Baouardy’s parents were Syrian and Lebanese Greek Catholics, and she was raised in Alexandria, Egypt. She was in no way, shape, or form “Palestinian,” and the Vatican is simply lying about her when it calls her a “Palestinian.”
Sister Baouardy was an extremely courageous woman. She fought off attempts by Muslims to forcibly convert her to Islam and attempts by her parents to forcibly marry her at age 13 to her uncle’s brother-in-law. Her uncle severely beat her because of her refusal to wed and choice to become a nun. She dedicated her life to the poor and was known as a saintly woman.
The event in Baouardy’s life for which she is most known is the incident in which a Muslim servant tried to get her to convert to Islam. She refused, and he slit her throat with a knife, dumping her body in an alley.
In her isolation from her uncle’s family, she turned to a Muslim servant to have him deliver her letter to Nazareth. For his part, the young man encouraged Mariam to reveal her personal troubles. He became outraged at her uncle’s treatment of her and played upon the mind and feelings of the young girl. He introduced conversion to Islam as a remedy to Mariam’s problems. His words and actions focused young Mariam directly upon her Christianity. However, she soon realized the young man’s true intentions, and this caused her to draw back. She denied his advances and loudly proclaimed her faith in the Church of Jesus. “Muslim, no, never! I am a daughter of the Catholic Church, and I hope by the grace of God to persevere until death in my religion, which is the only true one.” Her so-called protector, furious at being rejected by this young Christian, became violent. Eyes flashing with hatred he lost control and kicked her to the floor. He then drew his sword and slashed her throat. Thinking her dead, he dumped her bloody body in a nearby dark alley.
But she miraculously recovered from this experience after a nun found her, picked her up, and stitched up her throat wound, nursing her back to health. This is considered one of the two miracles that made her eligible to be canonized.
Given Sister Baouardy’s life story, it is incredible–an incredible lie–that Pope Francis praised Baouardy as “having been ‘a means of encounter and fellowship with the Muslim world.‘” Well, it was definitely an encounter with the Muslim world. But, no, Pope Francis, Sister Baouardy was a literal example that there is no fellowship with the Muslim world. Not even close. That’s why Christians are less than 2% of the remaining Palestinian population.
palestiniansvatican2
Much less is known about the life of Sister Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas. But we know that Baouardy’s big even in life was near-death from a murderous Muslim trying to convert her. And we know that today’s Palestinian Authority is a “state” in which neither nun would be welcome. We know that it is an Islamic state governed by Islamic law a/k/a sharia. We know that Catholics and other Christians are regularly murdered and chased out in the name of Islam with the full cooperation of this new “state” now recognized by the Pope.
It is an abomination that the Pope uses the good, saintly name of Sister Mariam Baouardy–who nearly gave her life because she refused to convert to Islam–to recognize and promote an Islamic state that is the modern-day proxy of her attacker.
If you are Catholic, you should be as disgusted by this big fat lie as I am.
So, when the Pope calls Palestinian terrorist-in-chief Mahmoud Abbas “an angel of peace,” ask yourself if he’d be saying the same thing about Sister Baouardy’s Muslim assailant.
***
By the way, it should be noted that many of the Palestinians in attendance at St. Peter’s Square for this propaganda event on Sunday were not Catholic. They were Muslims riding this BS all the way to the next jihad. And, sadly, Israel sent a pandering rep to watch Vatican Nero play his fiddle.
The canonization was celebrated in the Holy Land as well as by Palestinians in Rome. Bassam Abbas, a Palestinian-born doctor who has lived in Italy for 35 years, traveled from Civitavecchia, northwest of Rome, for the event with his wife and three children. They are Muslim, but their children go to a Catholic school.
“We are proud of this event,” Abbas said outside St. Peter’s Square as he waved a giant Palestinian flag. “We want peace for Palestine, peace which transcends religion.”
In addition to the Palestinian delegation on hand for the Mass, Israel sent a delegation headed by its ambassador to the Holy See, while France, Italy and Jordan also sent official delegations.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Is Israel the Obstacle to Middle East Peace?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Israel. This follows this post about abortion. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.


Is Israel the Obstacle to Middle East Peace?

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
The bells would ring out, songs of joy would break forth, the pipes of peace would be merrily played in the Middle East—if only the Jewish state of Israel did not exist as a source of contention and conflict with its Arab Muslim neighbors. Islamic State beheadings and other jihadist terrorist movements would soon die away. Or so many would have us believe.
We see widespread belief that if Israel would just make huge concessions, then all would be well. And then there are those who think it would be even better if Israel didn’t exist at all. This isn’t limited to those who decry Israel as a Zionist racist evil regime—of which there are plenty. Rather it’s also part of the utopian calculus that seeks the “greater good”—the simplistic notion that the higher aim of regional and world peace would be met by removing the supposed source of friction.
But is Israel even the actual source of the problem? Is it to blame for the conflict in the Middle East? Would there be peace if Israel made massive concessions—or if it ceased to exist altogether?

Blaming Israel for ISIS

In recent months U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made trips to the Middle East to, in part, discuss the rise and expansion of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. While there, he called for a resumption of Israeli–Palestinian Authority peace negotiations. After his return, he spoke at a State Department ceremony to mark the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, which celebrates the end of the Hajj pilgrimage (yes, really!).
He stated: “There wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation … People need to understand the connection of that … It has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity, and Eid celebrates the opposite of that” (quoted by Barak Ravid, “Israeli Ministers Slam Kerry for Tying Rise of Islamic State to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” Haaretz, Oct. 17).
Translation? Israel’s supposed unwillingness to make concessions fuels jihad—as does Israel’s so-called oppression of Arabs and disproportionate military response to terrorism.
It’s not surprising that Arab Muslim leaders would make such a case, but it is deeply troubling that the American secretary would fall in line with such rhetoric—especially while promoting an Islamic holiday in the same breath! He was essentially claiming, as one Israeli news source put it, that “Israel’s failures to forge a peace deal with the intransigent Palestinian Authority (PA)—not the US’s failures in the Middle East—are to blame for the rise of Islamic State (ISIS)” (Tova Dvorin, “Bennet Blasts Kerry’s Comments Blaming Israel for Rise of ISIS,” Arutz Sheva Israel National News, Oct. 17, 2014).
Israel’s Economy Minister Naftali Bennett shot back at Kerry’s insinuation in these poignant terms regarding brutality carried out by an ISIS member from the United Kingdom: “Even when a British Muslim beheads a British Christian, there will always be those who blame the Jews” (ibid.).
Communications Minister Gilad Erdan added: “Kerry is breaking records for a lack of understanding of what is going on in our region and the essence of the conflicts therein … Does anybody really believe that Islamic State’s war criminals will stop their atrocities and abandon the vision of an Islamic state because negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians were renewed?” (quoted by Ravid). That’s a good question.

Land for peace?

There are increasing calls for Israel to cede control of territory for the creation of a Palestinian state. Nearly a decade ago, however, American Thinker co-founder and chief political correspondent Richard Behr noted that people “seem to forget that Israel offered to give up 97% of the land in the territories in the year 2000, and provide Palestinians land within Israel in exchange for the remaining 3%. It was an offer designed to end the conflict. Instead, the Palestinians chose war” (“Israel as a Stabilizing Force in the Middle East,” July 25, 2005).
He further commented that it would be telling to see what would happen following Israel’s 2005 pullout from Gaza. He predicted that terror would increase. Was he ever right!
As radio host and columnist Bob Siegel recently pointed out: “Rockets have been firing into Israel since 2005, as a gesture of thanks when Israel abandoned the Gaza strip turning it entirely over to the Palestinians. Those who feel that all hostilities will cease if Israel simply gives back ‘all occupied territory’ should keep the example of Gaza in mind. Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Neither does the Palestinian charter. The return of land makes no difference whatsoever. Very few people today seem to understand this” (“The Historical Truths Behind the Israel-Palestinian Conflict,” Communities Digital News, Aug. 28, 2014).
Siegel went on to say: “When two nations make a peace treaty, there is supposed to be give and take on both sides. Israel’s deal (brokered by the U.S) always goes like this. ‘You give the Palestinians back some land and here is what they will do: They’ll promise to stop killing you.’ That’s the deal. Then, shortly after the deal, the promise is broken and missiles are fired into Israel from Gaza (where the Palestinians were finally offered their own autonomous rule) or a suicide bomber kills women and children on a bus.
“Nothing Israel does, no gesture, no concession, no discussion, will make a hill of beans of difference. They can sign a peace treaty. They can jump on board for a two state solution. It doesn’t matter. Hezbollah wants Israel dead. Al-Qaeda wants Israel dead. Hamas wants Israel dead. Muslim Brotherhood wants Israel dead. But it isn’t limited to the terrorist groups. Palestine itself wants Israel dead. The surrounding Arab nations want Israel dead. The Persian nation of Iran wants Israel dead.”
It’s often said of the Arab-Israeli conflict that if the Arabs and other Muslims laid down their arms there would be peace, whereas if the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no Israel.
Ultimately, this is where Israeli inaction or massive compromise would lead—and frankly, that is what those pushing for Israel to go this route seem to be aiming for (see “Two-State Plan Is a Means to Israel’s Destruction “).

A more obvious basis of conflict—Muslim fundamentalism

As for the contention of John Kerry and others that terrorism in the wider region and further abroad is fueled by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is some truth to the idea in that those who wish to see Israel eliminated constantly cite this as a grievance. But is that really the heart of the matter? Richard Baehr points out some cold, hard truths in his American Thinker piece:
“Certainly bin Laden never used the conflict as a primary justification for any of his actions leading up to and including the 9/11 attacks. His chief political objective has always been to rid Muslim soil of US and other Western forces, particularly in Saudi Arabia, where his ultimate objective has been to replace the royal family. Muslims in Chechnya, Kashmir, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Bali who have been relentlessly murdering non-Muslims for the last decade [as of 2005] have all had local or regional political issues on their agenda as well.”
Baehr countered other suggested sources like impoverished citizenry and repressive regimes by pointing out that other peoples in like conditions have not systematically resorted to international terror campaigns as those of Muslim lands have.
He then stated: “One issue that is rarely mentioned by the apologists and explainers is the most critical factor in explaining the growth of Muslim anger against the West: indoctrination. Muslims are indoctrinated into fundamentalist Islam, making it a growing force in many countries, through a steady stream of messages in the media, schools, prisons and mosques. This relentless propaganda campaign is funded primarily by Saudi Arabia … And where fundamentalism grows, anger and hatred of the West grows with it.”
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does play into this, but it’s for the same reason. “Think about this a different way,” Baehr suggests. “Are the world’s Jews so unsettled by the lack of resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, that they too are resorting to a terror campaign against the West or Arab states to demand its resolution?
“Israelis who send their children off to school, who board a bus, who eat at a restaurant, are aware that life could suddenly end for them or their family members at any moment. Israelis might have a right to be angry about the dangers and the state of siege they have endured for more than half a century. But [the need for] assuaging Israeli anger does not enter into the picture … Israelis, after all, are civil, and Western. They don’t deliberately kill innocents.”
He explains that the idea that Muslim anger would be assuaged by a two-state solution is naïve: “The resolution of the conflict that radical Islamists seek is not a two state solution in any case, but the elimination of Israel, which they see as a foreign Western outpost on what should be Islamic controlled land.
“There is no potential compromise between the views of Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Iranian mullahs, bin Laden and al Qaeda and the continued existence of a majority Jewish state of Israel. No border arrangement, and no two state solution could satisfy these zealots. These groups or leaders repeatedly emphasize that withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and Gaza is insufficient, merely a first step to elimination of Israel and the Zionist entity” (ibid.).

Islam’s history of conquest and reconquest

A key fact to be aware of in this conflict is that Islam was spread by the sword from its earliest decades. Indeed, the history of the religion is one of conquest and reconquest. The objective in authentic Islam, as spelled out in its holy book the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad, is to subjugate the world to Allah.
And once a land was conquered by Muslims, it was considered forever to be Islamic territory. Thus, to Islamic fundamentalists, the fact that the whole land of Israel was conquered in the 600s by Muslims means that it must forever remain under Muslim control. No political treaty can negotiate away this fundamental religious tenet.
As Baehr noted: “The darker side of this malignant stream that Israel has no right to exist, is really a broader argument, made by radical Muslims in this case, that non-Muslims can have no meaningful role in any Muslim-dominated land, and may live there only at the will of the Muslims who are there. The concept of a majority Jewish state, or even a Christian majority state within the Muslim world, is anathema in this mindset. And any country, once Muslim dominated, is part of the Caliphate to be restored. So Spain is in the target sights too.”
What this means is that even if there were no Israel or if Muslims now fully reacquired it, there still would be no peace in the Middle East. Even if Israelis made the ultimate sacrifice of giving complete control over to Muslims or, unthinkably, converting to Islam en masse, the march of militant Islam would continue still. As Baehr put it, “Sacrificing Israel will provide one good meal for them, only encouraging their appetite for more” (ibid.).
The march and accompanying conflict would continue even in completely Muslim lands that are not completely sharia-compliant, as is the case in Iraq and Syria, which have now seen the rise of the Islamic State as a new caliphate or Islamic empire.
So even with Israel gone, Muslim fundamentalists would still be fighting non-Muslims on their borders as well as non-Muslims and Muslims of different sects within their borders. They would still be fighting back against the West, whose people they view as the Christian Crusaders who invaded the Muslim-controlled Middle East in the Middle Ages. And not only must that still be avenged, but they see the Westerners as invading even now—not just through their proxy Israel but through their global influence.

War until all the world is under Islam

It’s vital to understand that Islamic fundamentalists feel compelled to wage jihad against not just the Jews, but Christians and those of other religions as well. Regarding non-Muslims, the Quran tells them, “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and [Allah’s] religion reigns supreme” (Surah 2:193). “Idolatry” in this context refers to any religion other than Islam.
Author Lela Gilbert has written about a Muslim catchphrase: “First the Saturday People, then the Sunday People. Such graffiti can sometimes be found in Muslim neighborhoods in the Middle East. The ‘Saturday People’ are, of course, Jews [who rest and worship on Saturday, the seventh-day Sabbath], today nearly gone from Muslim lands. Now the ‘Sunday People’—Christians [as most professing Christians observe that day]—are in the crosshairs, and they, too, are fleeing at an alarming rate. Both religions are unwelcome in many Muslim-majority lands for reasons of Islamist ideology—the declaration of jihad, or holy war, against infidels” (“Saturday People, Sunday People,” The Weekly Standard, Nov. 17, 2010).
In response to ISIS killing and enslaving Christians in Iraq, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said July 22, 2014, on Fox News’ Special Report With Bret Baier:“This is the pure essence of the intolerance and the barbarism of this kind of Islamic radicalism … You see it with Hamas. It wants to wipe out the Jews. You see it in Egypt with the Copts. You see it in Boko Haram with the attack on the churches in Nigeria. It’s all over. This is not about what the West has done, this is not about imperialism. This is not a payback. This is the expression of jihadism, and we see it tonight in the most horrible form.”
And the aim goes beyond Muslim borders. In fact, the Islamic State has declared its intention to conquer Rome, the very heart of the mainstream Christian world.
Moreover, it ultimately doesn’t matter if the West ever acted against the Muslim world or not. The real issue is that Islamists, in obedience to the commands of the Quran, consider it their duty to spread Islam to other countries regardless—until the whole world is Muslim.
In this ideology, “peace” is found only within those areas controlled by pure Islam, called dar al-Islam, the domain of Islam (that is, of submission). And lands outside of Islam’s control are regarded as dar al-harb, the domain of war—that is, the lands on which Muslims are to make war until they submit. Only when the whole world is brought under Islam will it all be the domain of peace with no more cause for war.
Again, this isn’t something new. In 1786, American Founding Fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with diplomats from Tunisia about the Barbary Pirates there (and in nearby Morocco and Algiers) attacking American ships and wrote the following to then-Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay: “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, & observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation—
“The [Tunisian] Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their Authority were sinners, that it was their right & duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, & to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise” (American Peace Commissioners to John Jay, March 28, 1786, Library of Congress, hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849, Images 430-432).

The real obstacle to peace to be removed

Thus it should be quite clear that Israel is not the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. And Israeli concessions or even getting rid of the Jewish state would not bring peace to the Middle East or the wider world.
Israel is not even the big enemy in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists. It is but a “little Satan”—an outpost in the region for “the Great Satan,” the United States of America as the preeminent Western Christian power in the world. Israel effectively serves at present as a buffer of sorts—a nearby focus for Islamist hostility. But if Israel were gone, Islamic terrorists would be pushing against and attacking Europe and the United States all the more. And these terrorists would take control of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, if you can imagine such a nightmare scenario.
Moreover, dictatorial regimes in the Middle East that have used Israel as a means to shift the focus of their populations away from dissatisfaction with their own leadership would step up efforts to blame the regions’ problems on Western powers—as they do to some extent already.
Now with the rise of the caliphate, Islamists are further encouraged and emboldened to commit terrorism in the West. And the situation is sure to worsen. (See “ Warnings to the West “).
So what, then, is the real obstacle to peace? Islamic fundamentalism is certainly a critical factor. But its roots go deeper than being simply a made-up religious system. There is also a serious family divide between Jews and Arabs going all the way back to the time of Abraham (see “ Middle East Chaos: What’s Happening and Why “).
Yet even this is not the ultimate heart of the problem. As we consider all of the frenzied hatred stirred up against Israel, the Jewish people and other nations of Israelite descent—not just among Muslims but among people the world over—we should gain a sense that this is not merely a matter of socioeconomic and political factors. The utter irrationality and unrestrained barbarism of it all provides another clue. There is something deeper at work—something utterly dark and evil.
The Bible informs us that this world is under the deception and sway of the truly Great Satan (1 John 5:19 1 John 5:19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness.
American King James Version×
; Revelation 12:9 Revelation 12:9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
American King James Version×
)—not a nation, but an immensely powerful spirit being. Satan the devil and his demons have confused the minds of people everywhere to corrupt them. They especially seek to undermine God’s purpose involving the descendants of Israel.
The constant spewing of hate originates with these hate-filled beings. Satan as “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2 Ephesians 2:2Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience:
American King James Version×
), broadcasts wrong moods and attitudes into human minds. Indeed, Satan and his demons are more directly the architects of false religion—including Islamic fundamentalism, which even its adherents believe and claim was revealed to Muhammad by a spirit being.
Yet God says that He will use the demonically stirred-up animosity and confusion to fulfill His purposes in the last days: “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it” (Zechariah 12:2-3 Zechariah 12:2-3 2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling to all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
American King James Version×
).
Indeed, God further says of what He Himself will bring about, “I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem” (Zechariah 14:2 Zechariah 14:2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
American King James Version×
, emphasis added).
We should further note that these prophecies mention the Jews being in the Holy Land up until these end-time events that will usher in Jesus Christ’s return—so the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic dream of the Jewish state being completely eradicated will not come true. However, the prophecies do reveal that the Jewish nation will suffer greatly, as will the other Israelite nations (see our free study aid The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy to learn more).
So how will peace come at last? Not through the eradication of the Jews, but through the removal of Satan and his demons at the coming of the Jewish Messiah —the true Christian Messiah, Jesus Christ, who will establish His reign over all nations. It will be an imposed true peace for the benefit and blessing of the whole world. People’s minds will be healed to think soundly and rationally—and with love and kindness toward all.
Of that time we are told, “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you” ’” (Zechariah 8:23 Zechariah 8:23Thus said the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
American King James Version×
). What a vastly different world that will be!