MENU

War
Tag Archive

On October 14, 2023 By In Culture

Thinking Christianly about Israel

The recent attacks by Hamas on the State of Israel and the rapidly expanding war in the Middle East that has followed have prompted many Christian preachers and pew-warmers to try their hand at theo-political punditry. This, by itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. The last few years have rightly undermined confidence in the competence of credentialed experts in many fields. We should bear in mind, however, that the fact the experts are making it up as they go is not an argument for the superiority of uninformed and ill-thought out opinions.

Many dispensationalists, predictably, see the latest violence in Israel as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and harbinger of the last days. The fact this is how they have interpreted every instance of violence involving Israel since their particular prophetic perspective appeared in the mid-1800s does not seem to dim their enthusiasm and confidence in reading the tea leaves of providence.

Christians who lean left politically (or long ago toppled over) can be heard making arguments about nuance, context, and the evils of colonization, as if any of those things had anything to do with deliberate war crimes against a civilian population, rape, kidnapping, multilation of the dead, and calls for systematic genocide against an ethnic group. If this argument is relevant, I suppose we might offer the same nuance and context for the Holocaust and Final Solution carried out by Nazi Germany. Maybe there was something to their claims about the Jews and their manipulation and control of financial markets after all.

Even among, more politically conservative, Reformed Christians there seems to be a perverse need to state the obvious. Ethnic Israel is no longer the covenant Israel of God and The political State of Israel is not God’s chosen people—believers in Jesus are. That is true, and there is a place for noting it. So many Christians in the west have been indoctrinated by dispensational theology that we must be prepared to offer such clarifications. But what does such a claim have to do with recent violence and the present war? Why would we make this clarification our emphasis at such a time? Is it helpful or appropriate?

How are we to think christianly about ethnic Israel? The Jews are not accepted by God simply on the basis of their heritage. Membership in the covenant is delineated by faith in Christ, not merely by biological lineage.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Galatians 3:26-29)

This does not, however, mean there is no longer any distinction to be found between ethnic Jews and the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The same apostle who wrote Galatians 3 also clearly affirmed:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not!

(Romans 3:1-4a)

He goes on in the same epistle to the Roman saints:

I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

(Romans 9:3-5)

These historical, bibliographical, religious, and spiritual advantages do not mean that Jewish people are saved apart from faith in Christ.

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

(Romans 10:1)

The Jews must embrace their Messiah, but Paul says they will.

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

(Romans 11:25-32)

All Israel will be saved. All Israel, i.e. ethnically Jewish people, as Jews, will come to faith in Christ. This means that while the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down in Christ, ethnic identities still exist. The fact that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people in the way they once were does not mean they have merely been absorbed into a mass of undifferentiated humanity. That is not what Scripture claims, quite the contrary.

Even under the Mosaic economy, the Jews were in proximity to covenant blessings that could only be fully and finally possessed by faith (John 8:31-58). Those who trusted in their ethnic heritage would not be accepted by God. They were sons of the Devil, not of Abraham. Abraham’s children have always been defined by their participation in Abraham’s faith. What has changed is not the recognition of Jewish ethnicity but the expansion of Abrahamic blessings to all nations through the resurrection and reign of Israel’s long-awaited Messiah.

God does not have two people groups with separate identities and destinies, as dispensationalism claims. But the Bible does acknowledge the persistence of the Jewish people, their distinctiveness as an ethnic group, and their future conversion to faith in Christ. Their destiny is not distinct from the Church of God but is rather to ultimately be united with the Church of God.

How are we to think about the recent attacks against Israel and their war with violent Islamists who openly state their intention to exterminate the Jews? All of the theology explained above may be true, and it may be helpful to Christians who are ill-taught on these issues. But it is of little use or relevance in responding to the kind of godless slaughter we have lately seen. Christians are sometimes guilty of the kind of theology as comfort practiced by Job’s friends. Miserable comforters are you all (Job 16:2).

Would Christian pastors have chosen September 12, 2001 as an opportune time to remind us that many of those killed the day before were unbelievers and now in Hell? Would it be helpful to observe, what is undoubtedly true, that American believers have more in common with Arab Christians than unbelieving New Yorkers who worked in the World Trade Center? The death of a neighbor’s child is not the time to lecture them about the mysteries of election. The young woman may have been dressed inappropriately, but the hours after her rape are not the best moment to discuss the importance of modesty.

It is true that American believers have more in common with a Palestinian Christian than they do with a secular Jew. It is also true that a believer has more in common with an American Christian than with his unbelieving cousin. But it would be naive and inappropriate to imagine that because one person (or group) is unbelieving, there can be no special connection to them. I have family members who are not walking with Christ, and I have far more affection and compassion for them than for anonymous Christians I have never heard about or met.

The Jews are the Christian’s cousins, and one day the family will be reunited. Christianity is a Hebraic faith. There is no denying the impact of Hellenistic language, philosophy, and culture on various aspects of the Christian tradition, but insofar as the two streams of Hebraism and Hellenism stand in opposition to one another in interpretation of Scripture, typology, liturgy, and ethics, the Christian faith stands in line with the tradition of the Hebrews, not the Greeks. Christians worship a Jew as the Son of God. Our spiritual fathers, first teachers, and foundational Scriptures are all Jewish. This is not to diminish the way in which God used the Greek language and culture to advance the cause of Christ. It is not to deny that the Jewish people, by and large, rejected their Messiah, fell under God’s condemnation, and have been estranged from the covenant of promise. But we should affirm that the Christian Church has more in common with modern Jews than with the average Gentile unbeliever, and we have vastly more in common with the State of Israel than we do with militant, Islamic terrorists.

One does not have to be a Zionist, neo-con, or dispensationalist to support Israel in its war with Hamas. The State of Israel is largely secular, but the conduct and stated mission of Hamas is explicitly, indefensibly evil. There are no mitigating circumstances, no excuses, no room for context, nuance, or negotiation. The Arab-Israeli conflict may be complicated. The Israel-Hamas war is not. To think christianly means not only thinking theologically and covenantally; it requires us to think with ethical clarity.

Read more

On October 12, 2023 By In Culture, Politics, Theology

IS ISRAEL THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD?

THIS DISPENSATIONAL MOMENT

Every time a rocket is launched from the Gaza strip, a dispensationalist gets his wings. And by wings, I mean like Red Bull, in that he will receive a rather large boost of courage, enough, in fact, to crawl up and out of the hole he has been hiding in from his last failed prediction and to flood the internet with a panoply of reasons why the end times are really here this time and happening right before our eyes. This confusion is entirely unhelpful and could be cleared up if any of my former 28 articles and podcast episodes on the topic of eschatology were seriously engaged with. Shameless plug intended.

Along with this, I have also seen a litany of social media posts proclaiming solidarity with Israel in their current war with Hamas, because they are God’s chosen people and we do not want to be on the wrong side with God. For this reason, before getting on to our topic today, I thought it might be wise to mention a few things to consider regarding the covenantal status of modern-day Israel.

STILL GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE?

Perhaps the best place to start would be with what the word Israel means. From the Scriptures, the first time the word is used is when God wrestles with Jacob and then renames Him Israel, which means “the one who wrestles with God.” Knowing this, it is obvious that “Israel” is not a genetic term that is passed through bloodlines down through families in the same way “Egyptian” would be. To be a member of Israel was a spiritual activity, of knowing God and wrestling with Him in intimate fellowship, not just merely inheriting the right DNA.

We know this is true, because God calls all kinds of ethnic peoples “Israel.” For instance, when the Israelites leave the land of Egypt, escaping from the slavery to be a free people serving their covenant God, the text tells us that a “mixed multitude” went out with them (Exodus 12:38). Apparently, there was a contingency of Egyptians who were so impressed by Yahweh, that they abandoned the empire of the Pharaohs and joined themselves with Israel, becoming followers of Jehovah. Just like the ethnic born sons of Abraham, they too were accounted as Israel.

Moses also reiterates that Israel was a spiritual distinction, when he admonishes the people to “circumcise their hearts” (Deuteronomy 10:16). All of the men of Israel had performed the physical sign of circumcision on their genitals, but there were many of them who were not true Israel in the heart (Romans 9:6). This is because being a member of true Israel was never about biology or physicality, but of spiritual allegiance to Yahweh.

Thinking also of the lineage of Christ, from the genealogies recorded in the Gospels, we can ascertain that Ruth the Moabite was a part of His lineage and was grafted into Israel. Along with Ruth, Rahab the Canaanite prostitute was a part of His line as well as Bathsheeba, who was the wife of Uriah the Hittite and could have been a Hittite herself (the text is unclear). Regardless, the Servant of the Lord, whom Isaiah calls “true Israel” was the one who assimilated people who were far off, and foreigners to His covenant promises, and brought them into Him as one people. This is why Paul says that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28) because all are one in Christ, made one through His finished work (Ephesians 2:14-16), to be children of Abraham by faith (Galatians 3:29), and have been made into a new nation, the “Israel of God” which includes slaves and free, male and female, Jews and Gentiles together as one unified people of God (Galatians 6:16).

(more…)

Read more

On September 21, 2017 By In Politics

What is a Just War?-The Just War Tradition in Brief

This is the second in an ongoing series about the just war tradition. Here is the first post where I review Charles and Demy’s book on the just war tradition. They list three basic sets of rules for a just war: rules for going to war (jus ad bellum),  rules for conducting a war (jus in bello), and a third list of what the authors call “prudential” or “secondary” criteria that flow out of the first two. There are three rules for going to war, two for conducting the war, and five prudential criteria.  In subsequent posts I will address these different criteria. In this post I give several quotes from the authors’ introduction where they explain what a just war tradition is and what it is not. The goal is to give the reader an overview of the just-war tradition.

Just war thought in its classic expression…is not first and foremost about military tactics and strategy; nor is it about justifying military operations that already have been undertaken. Rather properly viewed, it is a morally guided approach to statecraft that (1) qualifies the administration of coercive force and (2) views peace as the result of justly ordered relationships. Not all use of force is just; frequently it is not. And not all use of force creates conditions for bringing about peace and justice.  Therefore, the use of force must be highly qualified. Peace is not to be understood as the absence of conflict; it is rather the fruit or by-product of a justly ordered society…The ordering of society-and the just maintenance of that order at its various levels-is the task of policy

(more…)

Read more

On September 14, 2017 By In Books

What is a Just War?-Book Review

People talk about just war all the time, but rarely is it defined or described. What is a just war? Was Iraq a just war? What about World War II? How does one conduct a just war in the age of terrorism?  Does Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek mean we can never kill? Over the next several weeks I am going to do a series on just war. We will look at just war criteria for going to war and waging a war, the idea of justice and whether or not peace is an automatic indicator that a society is just. We will also consider the connection between Scripture and natural law when discussing just war, historical examples of the just war tradition, pacificism, and many other topics.

When I began studying just war I needed to get my bearings. Everything I knew about war came from talking heads. I investigated book options and found this gem; War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just War Perspective. I bought this book hoping for two things: First, I would get a basic understanding of just war theory.  Second, I would get a lot of footnotes that pointed me to other sources.  This book delivered on both counts. There are other books that will give you more depth on specific issues connected to just war theory.  But if you have never studied just war theory, Charles and Demy’s book is a great place to start.

The authors divide their book into six different sections Just War Tradition and the: Philosopher, Historian, Statesman, Theologian, Combatant, and Individual. They use a question and answer format to describe what just war is, what it is not, some questions that still need to be answered, and the history of just war. They rely heavily on Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Vitoria, and Suarez. (I hadn’t heard of the last three either.) They also use a lot of O’Donovan and a current just war writer named James Turner Johnson. They address terrorism, nuclear war, humanitarian intervention, the UN, post war development of countries, non-lethal weapons, “turn the other cheek,” does war violate the command to not kill, did Jesus change our approach to war, is just war only a Christian idea or it can it be found in non-Christian sources, Bonhoeffer’s attempt on Hitler’s life, Ghandi’s pacifism, C.S. Lewis’ writings on war, supreme emergency, the early church on war, including Roland Bainton’s pacifistic reading of the church fathers, criteria for going to war, criteria within a war, private military contractors, ethical development of weapons, Romans 13, etc. The value of this book is how much ground it covers. You will not get an in depth chapter length discussion of each facet of just war theory, but you will get the basic ideas on it. It is an excellent introduction to just war thought, though I doubt any reader will agree with all.

The questions and answers in various sections overlap with questions and answers in other sections thus there is some repetition.  Also, there are areas that I would like more precision and discussion, such as what makes an authority legitimate, but the sources cited should provide answers. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand how Christians and others have defined just war.

Read more

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation

On April 28, 2015 By In Politics

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation

Battlefield America: The War on the American People

Guest Post By John W. Whitehead

Americans now find themselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military and have just as little regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.

Making matters worse, now we find out that the military plans to use southwestern states as staging grounds for guerilla warfare drills in which highly-trained military troops equipped with all manner of weapons turn American towns and cities in quasi-battlefields. Why? As they tell us, it’s so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory.

They’ve even got a name for the exercise: Jade Helm 15.

Whether or not Americans have anything to fear from Jade Helm 15, a covert, multi-agency, multi-state, eight-week military training exercise set to take place this summer from July 15 through Sept. 15, remains to be seen.

Insisting that there’s nothing to be alarmed about, the Washington Post took great pains to point out that these military exercises on American soil are nothing new. Yet if Americans are uneasy about this summer’s planned Jade Helm 15 military exercises, they have every right to be.

After all, haven’t we been urged time and time again to just “trust” the government to respect our rights and abide by the rule of law only to find that, in fact, our rights were being plundered and the Constitution disregarded at every turn?

Let’s assume, for the moment, that Jade Helm 15 is not a thinly veiled military plot to take over the country lifted straight out of director John Frankenheimer’s 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May, as some fear, but is merely a “routine” exercise for troops, albeit a blatantly intimidating flexing of the military’s muscles.

The problem arises when you start to add Jade Helm onto the list of other troubling developments that have taken place over the past 30 years or more: the expansion of the military industrial complex and its influence in Washington DC, the rampant surveillance, the militarized police, the loss of our freedoms, the privatized prisons, the military drills on domestic soil, the fusion centers and the simultaneous fusing of every branch of law enforcement (federal, state and local), the stockpiling of ammunition by various government agencies, the active shooter drills that are indistinguishable from actual crises, etc.

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation by John W. Whitehead

Suddenly, the overall picture seems that much more sinister. Clearly, as I point out in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there’s a larger agenda at work here.

Seven years ago, the U.S. Army War College issued a report calling on the military to be prepared should they need to put down civil unrest within the country. Yet at what point will all of the government’s carefully drawn plans for dealing with civil unrest, “homegrown” terrorism and targeting pre-crime become a unified blueprint for locking down the nation?

For instance, what’s the rationale behind turning government agencies into military outposts? There has been a notable buildup in recent years of SWAT teams within non-security-related federal agencies such as Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.

What’s with all of the government agencies stockpiling hollow point bullets? For example, why does the Department of Agriculture need .40 caliber semiautomatic submachine guns and 320,000 rounds of hollow point bullets?

Why does the Postal Service need “assorted small arms ammunition”? Why did the DHS purchase “1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO ‘personal defense weapons’ plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines”? That’s in addition to the FBI’s request for 100 million hollow-point rounds. The Department of Education, IRS, the Social Security Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the National Weather Service, are also among the federal agencies which have taken to purchasing ammunition and weaponry in bulk.

Why is the federal government distributing obscene amounts of military equipment, weapons and ammunition to police departments around the country? And why is DHS acquiring more than 2,500 Mine-Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles, only to pass them around to local police departments across the country?

Why is the military partnering with local police to conduct training drills around the country? And what exactly are they training for? The Army and DHS has been carrying out drills and maneuvers involving Black Hawk helicopters in Texas, Florida, and other locations throughout the U.S., ostensibly in order to provide local police with “realistic” urban training.

Why is FEMA stockpiling massive quantities of emergency supplies? And why does the TSA need $21,000 worth of potassium chlorate, a chemical compound often used in explosives?

Why is the Pentagon continuing to purchase mass amounts of ammunition while at the same time preparing to destroy more than $1 billion worth of bullets and missiles that are still viable?

Given the similarities between the government’s Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, which can and do fool law enforcement officials and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis, how much of what is being passed off as real is, in fact, being staged by DHS for the “benefit” of training law enforcement, leaving us none the wiser?

Why is the DHS giving away millions of dollars’ worth of federal security grants to states that federal intelligence agencies ruled have “no specific foreign or domestic terrorism threat”?

Why is the government, without warrant or search order, amassing names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation, and what criteria is the government using for this database? It’s been suggested that this Main Core database could be used by military officials to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security, a program to be carried about by the Army and FEMA.

Taken individually, these questions are alarming enough. But when viewed collectively, they leave one wondering what exactly the U.S. government is preparing for and whether American citizens shouldn’t be preparing, as well, for that eventuality when our so-called “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is no longer answerable to “we the people.”

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. Whitehead’s concern for the persecuted and oppressed led him, in 1982, to establish The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization whose international headquarters are located in Charlottesville, Virginia. He served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Read more

On November 26, 2014 By In Politics

The Christian with a $56 Million ISIS Bounty On His Head

In the midst of the chaos created by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), there is a particular Christian who has the Islamic radicals ruffled. ISIS leaders have even placed a $56 million bounty on his head. His name is Canon Andrew White and he is the vicar of the only Anglican Church in Iraq.

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 1.22.49 AM

Can Christianity Survive in Iraq?

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Christian population in Iraq has faced a harsh and hellish struggle for survival in the war-torn state. The religious persecution has shrunk the Christian population in Iraq from over 1.5 million believers in 2003 to just a tiny fraction of that today. Christians have been forced out of the country and bombs have specifically targeted Christian churches. Priests and Bishops have faced the brunt of attacks as Islamic groups have attempted to discourage the faith that has existed in Iraq for 2,000 years.

The Vicar of Baghdad

Canon Andrew White, who is called the Vicar of Baghdad, began his peace work in Iraq in 1998 and then re-established St. George’s Church in Baghdad in 2005 in a post-Saddam Iraq. White’s church soon became the center of the community, offering hope to Iraqi Christians amid a dangerous and tumultuous environment. Through the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, Canon White was able to also provide a Church-based school and medical clinic. Called, “Aboona” or “father” by the people of his congregation, White has been kidnapped, shot at, and endured bombings – yet his heart continues to be focused on protecting the Christian minority in Iraq. Thousands from White’s congregation have left Baghdad since ISIS broke through and the Vicar can count over a thousand who have been killed from his congregation alone.

The Church in Danger

In October, Archbishop Justin Welby ordered White to return for fear of his life. Reluctantly, Canon White left Iraq for Jerusalem where he continues to be an advocate of peace and shed light on the struggles of the Christians in Iraq. As he watches his people suffer from afar, “Aboona” wants to return to Baghdad. While many ask, “Why would you go back when it’s so dangerous?” His answer is always “Because I love my people.”

The Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East (FRRME) supports the work of Canon Andrew White and provides humanitarian relief in Iraq through St. George’s Church and Clinic. Click here to find out you can help this cause. 

Read More about Canon Andrew White in a recent interview with the Huffington Post UK.<>как написать концепцию а

Read more

On September 9, 2013 By In Politics

Against “Alienationism”

Guest Post by Mark Nenadov

The Isolationists Are Coming!

Western politics has never had an irony deficiency. One recurring irony has been the label “isolationist”, usually applied in attempts to discredit grassroots opposition to war. I would say that my position is more accurately labeled “non-interventionist”.

It’s hard to believe that a politician who supports protectionism, trade embargoes, strict immigration laws, border fences, and unilateral military strikes, can with an absolutely straight face, turn and chuck the “isolationist” grenade at his non-interventionist opponent.

You can take a whole laundry list of things to isolate your country, and that’s fine! But argue against wildly unpopular and non-defensive bombing campaigns? Isolationist!

The Alternative To Non-interventionism is “Alienationism”

I’ll be reasonable. You can call me an “isolationist” under one condition. All I want is permission to bring “alienationist” into common usage.  An “alienationist” avoids being an “isolationist” through actions characterized by a swagger and a lack of caution. They bomb first and ask questions later. This approach, I might add, alienates its populace from peace, freedom, prosperity, virtue, and usually the rest of the world.

An “alienationist” foreign policy is intended to be non-insular, but the unintended consequence is actually isolation and alienation. As Frédéric Bastiat said, there are seen things and there are unseen things. The unseen things are rarely accounted for in strategic calculations. In foreign affairs, however, the unseen becomes seen pretty quickly!

Reviewing recent history, it isn’t hard to see how “interventionism” and “alienationism” are, if not synonyms, at least twins. Intervene often and everywhere, and you will create more enemies than a mosquito in a den of dragonflies. And dragonflies are fierce predators, by the way.

 

Recognizing The Alienationist In The Wild

Here are some helpful memes and traits to help you identify Alienationists.

1. The Giant Slayer. The Alienationist is, if nothing else, a Giant Slayer. Nothing like David. Well, sort of. In 1971, before joining the War Party, John Kerry astutely observed that military intervention becomes “a sort of messianic enterprise”. Contrary to the advice of John Quincy Adams, Alienationists go about “in search of monsters to destroy”. Whether it is Assad or Saddam, there must be some bad guy, often a former ally.

2. The Ticking Bomb Of Destruction. Alienationists usually require something more than mere death to make the masses gasp and reach for their gas masks. People and elected representatives will not became pliable by such “trifles”as reports of conventional warfare. Fearful weapons of mass destruction are required, actual or rumored, preferably rumored. If real, they probably came from the Alienationist! Sort of like the ones that the Reagan administration helped Saddam acquire and use in the 1980’s. Or the nuclear weapons that Iran will have produced by 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007……or 2015?

3. Depersonalization: Pronoun Squeamishness And Euphemisms. When the Alienationist talks about his legislative or administrative accomplishments, he liberally uses the personal pronoun.  However, when the war effort is invoked, he often subtly transforms to collectivism (“our nation”, “our military”, and “our troops”).  Also, the consequences and raw “feelings” of war are masqueraded by devices, including technology (drones) and verbal technology, namely euphemisms (discrete, surgical, defense, deterrent).

4. The International Community Of One Or A Few. Often, illusions of universal consensus are manufactured. And, of course, it must be the world that drew the red line and it must be the international community that is outraged, as we’ve seen in Obama’s Syria rhetoric. The question of the day becomes: If 189 countries have signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty, why do so few support this military action? And why has a close ally, Israel, signed but not actually ratified this treaty against chemical weapons? Ah, details, details!

5. A Friend Of The Devil Is The Friend Of Ours. As long as you are slaying Giants, you can enlist evil Giants on your side. Even Efraín Ríos Montt, the man Reagan once said had “great personal integrity”. Tell that to Guatemala now!

This would be what one might call the “He may be an S.O.B., but he’s our S.O.B.” factor.  I suppose you can just call the rascals “freedom fighters” or “revolutionaries”, but hopefully they don’t cross you and become “terrorists”! We see this in the support of questionable rebels against Assad in Syria. And history provides us many other examples, such as FDR’s coverup of Stalin’s crimes, Cold War era support of Bin Laden against the Soviets, and supporting Saddam against Iran.

6. Short And Selective Memory. He who repeats history is doomed to not remember it. Or something like that! There is a chronic inability to see patterns in history and learn from them. In the Alienationist’s book, history starts at a convenient location and, of course, forgets injustices perpetrated by the home team. For instance, when many Americans think of Iran, they start with the hostage situation in the late 1970’s, completely ignoring the CIA-orchestrated coup in 1953. And the assistance provided to Saddam in using chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980’s is conveniently forgotten.

Conclusions

We would err if we saw the U.S. as the only “alienationist” country. It’s just a contemporary example. Don’t forget France’s recent bombing campaign in Mali. The French have an extensive history of meddling in Africa and the Middle East.

If our nations trample the Golden Rule and fight without just cause, we should expect to go the way of poverty, culturally, economically, and morally. As A.A. Hodge said, war is “an incalculable evil, because of the lives it destroys, the misery it occasions, and the moral degradation it infallibly works on all sides”.

We’d do well to expose alienationism. A healthy dose of non-interventionist sentiment will be necessary if we are to foster a just, peaceful, and prosperous society.  Bearing the reproach of the “isolationist” label is a small price to pay for this good end. So, sit down with Mr. Twain (isolationist cigar optional) and say to yourself “let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way”.

For more publications and updates on Mr. Nenadov, see Goodreads, Blog, Twitter, Linkedin, Website
<>разместить рекламу в метро

Read more

On August 26, 2013 By In Scribblings

Steve Macias: Democrats to Launch War with Syria?

According the Washington Post, “President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria…”

Over a decade ago, then Senator John Kerry supported the effort to invade Iraq over  WMD’s. The next decade was democrat pundit after pundit decrying the prolonged war in the Middle East-even Kerry claimed that Bush had mismanaged the new conflict. As Saddam died, so did the anti-war left. Yet, the war raged on.

Now Secretary of State Kerry has found a new pie for his warmongering thumb: Syria. Syrian President Hassad has also been on our President’s radar for some time, perhaps even back to his Nobel Peace Prize days, by calling for his resignation, freezing all assets of the Syrian government subject to U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting Americans from engaging in any transaction involving thegovernment.

Syrian President Hassad

The talking points have shifted from, “Saddam has WMDs” to “Assad has WMDs.” These acts of war are now going be justified, along with new crimes, by another WMD conversation. But that makes perfect sense right? These tyrants might hurt innocent people. That is unacceptable, we will send in some cruise missiles to ensure that if anyone gets hurt, it will be on our un-stainable American “freedom fighting” hands.

 <> google words

Read more