Archive for January, 2007

Gay rights activist argue that homosexuality is normal because it is natural; they declare it an orientation which some people are born with. On the other hand however, many of their opponents will argue that homosexuality is an immoral behavior arrived at by choice and not at all as an inherited genetic characterization. Thus, the proponents of these two opposing views attempt to strengthen their positions for or against the behavior by making the determination of whether this type of behavior is a natural orientation acquired at birth or not.

The assumption is that if one is born homosexual then it is natural, and being natural it should not be criticized, condemned, or considered anything but normal for certain individuals. On this basis proponents for normalization of homosexuality often argue that some individuals are born gay and equate that with being born of a minority race or having other inherited attributes which are not chosen by the individual at conception.

The idea is that homosexuality is natural orientation determined before birth and therefore it is normal – And why should anyone suffer for the way they were created?

The counter argument to this is that homosexuality, is unlike race or a physical characteristic for it is not a genetic attribute but a chosen behavior.

There has even been genetic research into this in an attempt to determine whether or not behaviors are geneticly influenced and to what extent physical chemistry effects behavioral tendencies, for genetics generally deals with the physical chemistry of individuals rather than emotions or behavior.

Physically speaking, it may be observed that some men do appear more masculine while other men may have more of an effeminate look. These appearances however, are not necessarily indicative of sexual orientation, for it should be noted that homosexuality is indeed a behavior practiced by various types of individuals – And it may also be observed that some men with softer features are heterosexual and possess no desire to be anything otherwise.

But regardless of whether some individuals are born with certain natural tendencies or if they are developed afterwards over time, does a predisposition to act upon a natural impulse in either case come without a choice to take action or to refuse that inclination?

The ability we humans have as individuals is to weigh actions and control behavior regardless of what our natural impulses may compel us to do. Otherwise, if we were not free moral agents we would have no laws governing behavior but act only upon instinct as do animals in the wild which have no laws or enforcers of law.

Thus, being that we have the ability to manage and control urges and tendencies, it is moot whether they originate at birth or are acquired – although behaviors are likely a combination of inherited natural tendencies strengthened by accepted influential development later on.

If such is the case, we are all born with various tendencies but we make conscientious choices as we develop our personal character which either augment or diminish those natural impulses.

What this would mean is that regardless of the tendencies we are born with, we have the ability to chose our behavior. Some behaviors would be more natural for some people to acquire or supress than for others who possess different natural dispositions; it may be more difficult for some people to be patient or control anger while for others it would come more naturally.

Regardless, because behaviors are controlled the true issue is over what behaviors produce positive effects and which ones produce negative ones, for not all natural tendencies are constructive. Furthermore, tendencies are not justified alone on the basis of their being natural. Prisons are full of people who followed their nature there.

Each of us have tendencies to which we are predisposed by nature, however, unlike animals we can determine how, when, or if these impulses are obeyed or not, for we are managers of our nature. Some natural impulses may have positive effects and while others, depending upon circumstances, may be amoral, constructive, or destructive, depending upon how they are managed in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, some tendencies are only destructive by nature and regardless of how prone we are to them they need to be suppressed and controlled.

I would not suggest that all adverse tendencies be punished by law other than those which physically assault or harm another, usually without the others consent (i.e.: murder, theft, etc.)

However, to normalize some tendencies merely by virtue of them coming naturally will do no more than create a modern civilization of the most elite and sophisticated savages the world has ever seen.


Read Full Post »

In an article of their own MEMRI has brought to light two articles published in December of 2006 from the Syrian government daily: Teshreen, and the Iranian government daily: Tehran Times. The articles give evidence to Russia’s global ambitions to re-establish Russia’s international power by increasing Russian presence, influence, and participation in the oil rich Middle-East.

The article posted at MEMRI is from January 12, 2007 and entitled: Iranian and Syrian Government Papers on Renewed Superpower Role for Russia to Counter U.S. in Middle East

The following are selected excerpts from the two articles cited by MERMI:

“We must acknowledge that the role of Unified Russia was limited for a while following the fall of the Soviet Union, when the Russians were busy reorganizing their domestic affairs after going through some rough times… But now, Russia has begun to rebuild its central and important role in the global arena, especially in the Middle East…

…….Syria is [relying] on Russia to play its role alongside Europe and the U.N., so that the region will not remain hostage to the Americans, who tend to support Israel’s aggression and terrorism…”

“Russia has begun to restore its central and important role in the global arena, and especially in the Middle East”

The main goal of these activities is restoring Russia’s international status, which was greatly diminished after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I have been ranting about Russia for some time now and we should be watching China also. The Russians are very shrewd and have been waging a global war of deceit and manipulation since Putin came to power.

Russia is at war with the West by proxy. This has been carefully and cunningly thought out and they are confronting us by using smaller and weaker nations rather than directly themselves. This allows them to still work freely the economic and political fronts without much confrontation. Of late, consolidation and control of energy has been relentlessly pursued by the Russian government along with multi-million dollar arms contracts with rogue states.

Most Arabs would still be swinging saifs rather than toting AK-47s if it weren’t for Russia. If Iran gets nukes it will only be because Russia made it possible. The Arab nations are Russian proxies just like Venezuela. They need each other to expand and maintain power. They are all using each other.

Do you really think that if terrorist eventually obtained nukes and set them off in Washington, NYC and LA simultaneously that Russian and Chinese elitists would not be pleased?

They would be concerned for themselves but likely would put on a serious face, condemn the act and use it for an excuse to wipe out the Arab nations involved so that it did not happen to them.

At that point the Islamic threat is gone, America is no longer a super power, and they are the top dogs in the world.

I‘m just thinking here, speculating on possibilities, not saying this will happen; but I know there are old hardliners in Russia that are that evil. The same with China, they would shed no tears if the West was hit with WMD regardless of the statements they would make to the world afterwards. Russia and China both are supporting these insane Islamic extremists as a hands off way to strike out at the US and by extension this pulls Israel into the crossfire also.

hatip: Israpundit

Read Full Post »

For centuries Western civilization was under the fist of Rome which from the beginning was the antithesis of Jerusalem. The Romans themselves were the antithesis of the Hebrews. As far as collectivism and fascism go, Rome was an author of both. On the other hand, the Hebrews authored individual rights, liberty, freedom and justice for all. This puts the two foundations of belief in direct opposition.

American Founders also attested to the Hebrew roots of liberty and justice, for example:

“The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.” – John Adams

It was John Adams also along with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson who recommended the first design for the official seal of the United States which depicted the Israelites crossing the Red Sea with the motto: “Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

This line of thought was common in America before and during that era, and in fact, the influence of the ancient Israelites was so great at the time that there were discussions in Congress on replacing English with Hebrew as the language of the United States.

In 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned Congress to authorize and endorse an edition of the Old and New Testaments in English for the use of citizens and for use in schools, which they did in 1782 stating:

[Congress] “….highly approve[s] the pious and laudable undertaking…,” “….. and “recommend[s] this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States,…” [Congress also] “…authorize[d] him to publish this Recommendation….”

On the other hand, the Roman system was based on the fasces (a symbol of many rods bound by cords to an ax) The bonds made them one but the ax was the superior and could chop the rods to pieces.) This symbolized a collective civilization made up of many people bound to the authority of Rome as one. Mussolini built his fascism on this concept and even revived the fasces for the symbol of his party. In Washington D.C. you can find the evidence of influences of both the ancient Romans and ancient Hebrews; today the US is becoming much more “Romanistic” and eliminating biblical influences in government.

Ancient Rome is an icon of collective power under human authority and Jerusalem is the icon of freedom and liberty under God. That was the conflict then between the Jews and the Romans when Judea was under Roman authority and it is the conflict we see in the world today. The whole world is presently in turmoil in the continuing ideological struggle between the Jewish model and the Roman model of thought.

Having been dispersed abroad for the last 2000 years many Jewish people, like the Gentiles they live among have come to embrace and cleave to the Roman model of thought. They are willing to entrust complete power in the hands of politicians to control our destiny and solve all of the world’s problems.

Today there exists basically two separate veins of “Christianity” (athough some Christians are influenced by both to varying degrees.) One vein stems from the roots of Rome, the Church or a man is the authority. This is the base of the large mainstream churches and from this vein antiSemitism flows. The other vein is based on the belief that God is judge and ruler of all men as recorded by the Hebrews. He is the author of rights and liberty and foremost we only need be concerned with answering to him.

When Christianity spread through Europe, it was based on Roman philosophies after having been adopted by the Roman Emperor who made it the official religion of Rome and used it to enhance political power. Rome was still Rome remaining and ruling an oppressive collectivist civilization, but now with dimensions of both political and religious power.

When biblical scripture started to become available the common people (many were executed for this) the reformation began to break the bonds of the Roman model and many Europeans slowly began to come to embrace the foundation laid by the Hebrew writers of scripture. The collective power of the Church began to be broken and the individual began to gain freedom and power. The response from the Roman Church was the Inquisitions. Since that time there has been a schism in Christianity and as you see today, the liberal churches (based on the Roman model) as they did then, diametrically oppose the pro-Israel Evangelical Christians who are drawn to the Jewish people and their original roots. These Jewish roots draw Gentile believers to the Jerusalem model of thought and this is where many Jews and Gentiles are meeting on a foundation of common principles and values, even if beliefs of faith differ.

However, Western civilization has always been a mix of the two ideologies and has never come to fully understand or fully embrace the Jewish model completely – but to the extent it has and to the extent some Christians have, they have prospered. Nonetheless, what we see now as Europeans go secular their society goes down and they become more anti-Semitic.

Islam ties into this also since Roman paganism had roots in Babylonian paganism – and though many people are not aware of it, Mohammad was raised for a time by a Catholic nun during in his formative years and was taught Catholicism and developed Islam in part on it – but I digress.

There are two basic foundations of thought for civilization, the collective society and the society of free individuals – And they are in constant conflict.

Read Full Post »

The relationship of fascism to Islam, Communism, The Inquisition, and other oppressive mass movements.

Before discussing fascism it must first be determined what it is and the way the word is being used. In the usage here the term is in the context of the ancient Roman fasces which was the symbol of a collective society strictly controlled by a powerful authoritarian rulership. Both Rightist and Leftist become fascist to the degree that they actively work to force or coerce society into absolute compliance of their ideology. Many of us to the left or right fall somewhere in between the two end polls but there are extremes in either direction.

Communism and fascism are both forms of collectivism, they have their nuances which make them appear different but they are at the root driven by the same natural impulses. All extremism is driven by the same natural impulses even if they appear to be diametrically opposed to each other.

The Catholic Church in the Inquisition, militant Islam today, movements in communism and fascism that killed millions – What they all have in common is they were driven by the same natural impulses but manifested themselves in different forms due to their unique cultural and social influences. Our nature is very basic and it is in us. We make choices but when we chose certain impulses they are going to drive us all to do the same things in our own unique ways which may even appear to be opposites – At the core however, is the same innate force.

This is not a right or left thing, I primarily write about the left because it has overwhelmed western culture. I see some of the same impulses in radical Islam which I would consider extreme right – same impulses but a different manifestation – not unlike a disease which creates different reactions in different people so that it is not always recognizable by the symptoms.

This understanding is the basis of Eric Hoffer’s book True Believer: Thoughts on The Nature of Mass Movements.

Here are a couple of other informative links with other valid points showing the close relation of collective authoritarian societies:

Fascism And Socialism Explained

Fascism Reconsidered

Read Full Post »

With the recent announcement of the resignation of fourteen members from the Carter Center’s board of councilors supporters of Israel have a reason to feel at least some vindication.

There is however, an underlying element of these resignations which is being largely ignored in the main stream media which points to something deeper which should be of concern – The fourteen members are all Jewish.

The usual suspects in this disregard of information are The New Times, the Associated Press, and Reuters to name a few. Out of the articles published by major media outlets which I have found the AP comes the closet to giving an indication of the fact but almost implies that there were other non-Jews. Quoting the AP article:

….“Berman said the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include some prominent Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, didn’t influence their decision”

To obtain more details in this regard I did a news search and came up with one article from the Jewish publication JTA, an article written by Ben Harris where he writes the following:

Fourteen Jewish members of the Carter Center’s board of councilors have resigned to protest the former president’s new book blaming Israel for the failure of Middle East peace efforts…..”

“…..Steve Berman, an Atlanta real-estate developer who was among the 14 that resigned from the Carter Center’s board of councilors, told JTA several weeks ago that the group wanted to bring along some non-Jews from the 200-member board. That effort apparently was unsuccessful.

I would also note that these fourteen resignations follow others who as also appear be overwhelmingly if not completely Jewish – but, should this matter? I say it does and will address that aspect after a few more tid-bits of information.

Another item in Ben Harris’s article that is not directly related to the resignations may be somewhat telling:

“Funding for the center’s $36 million operating budget comes from a mix of corporate and private philanthropic sources. In addition, a number of prominent Arab donors — including Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Abdulaziz, Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman, and the governments of Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — are listed as having contributed more than $1 million.”


But then there is this quote that dumbfounds me:

“ In an interview Thursday, Berman said that time considerations, as well as a desire not “to be disruptive to the work of the Carter Center,” had limited the group’s expansion.”

I would be inclined to ask: What is the work of the Carter Center and why shouldn’t it be disrupted?

Out of more than 200 members we have less than two dozen resignations which are disproportionately Jewish if not totally – Where are the non-Jews?

And this is the cause of concern.

Not only has Carter vehemently and repeatedly attacked Israel, he has sold out his own country. He despises and is uncomfortable with America’s greatness and power and has done everything in his own power to make everyone in the world equal regardless of how despotic or ruthless they are – And his chief method to accomplish this is by weakening free nations! – Give-aways, peace treaties etc…..

He has created a historical role as being an international broker between free nations and tyrannies all at the expense of the free people.

What has happened in this case with the resignation of Jewish members only is an example I was referring to when I made a relation between Collectivism and Anti-Semitism in the article I authored by that title.

Carter is an internationalist with a collectivist agenda. As I had stated, as these collectivist agendas develop they serve the majority and create a group identity that represents it. Jews are almost always a small minority everywhere except in their own land. They will always find themselves coming into a conflict of interest in or with collective societies that are predominately non-Jewish. It is a pattern throughout history that I believe is showing itself again here even if on a smaller scale.

When will the Jewish people stop working for others who are building their gallows?

Read Full Post »

I have argued for some time (although it may be hard to wrap your head around it) that Islamic radicals and radical leftist are the opposite polls of the same natural impulses.

Although these impulses manifest themselves as opposites, they are driven by similar aspirations. The differences between them are in their outward appearances which are based largely on their cultures, societies, and religions (Yes, secular leftist are religious.)

I have no problem whatsoever with Professor Paul Eidelberg’s article where he makes comparisons between radical leftist and Islamic radicals when he writes:

Like Islam, Communism is a totalitarian creed that readily appeals to the fanatical mind – those that cannot tolerate diversity. Both Islam and Communism reject an international community of sovereign nation-states. Both are imperialistic and regard international borders as artificial and temporary. War is their modus operandi.

Both Islam and Communism reject values intrinsic not only to liberal democracy, but also to Civilization, namely, the primacy of consent or persuasion in human affairs as opposed to the primacy of force or coercion. Both Islam and Communism therefore reject the civility associated with classical Greek philosophy (think of Plato’s dialogues). At the same time, both deny the Judeo-Christian concept of the sanctity of human life and of individual freedom.

This has been a theme in some of my writings also on the issue of collectivism. There are really only two types of people, free individuals and those who are drawn to a strong totalitarian group identity that develops a mob or group conscience. All other people fall between the two and are combinations of them, however, the further a society wonders from freedom the stronger the gravitational pull becomes to totalitarianism.

It is the same natural impulses that drives them both to focus on the same enemies. Even though they are the furthermost socially and culturally from each other their primary targets are everyone and everything else that falls anywhere in the spectrum between them.

Barring cultural and family influence, had a radical liberal been raised in an Islamic nation he may very well have grown up an Islamic militant. Had an Islamic militant been raised in San Francisco he may well have grown up to be a flaming liberal. The Americans who I have seen that became Islamic Militants were raised in liberal and secularist homes.

Adolf Hitler stated that converted communists make a good Nazis. Fanatics have a need to be fanatical about something and can become fanatical about almost anything they find some attraction to. For them it is more about fulfilling that need than it is about arriving at a faith or belief through reason.

The war being waged today is by both ends against the middle and the major difference between the ends is their heritage and culture.

Read Full Post »

An article appearing in the January 12th issue of The Jewish Week entitled Gen. Clark’s Controversy addresses recent comments by Wesley Clark directed against the pro-Israel lobby which raised fears that ‘conspiracy theories’ and anti-Semitism may be going mainstream.

It all began last week when Arianna Huffington reported on her blog that during a recent encounter with Clark he expressed outrage by stating he was “really angry” that former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “leading the charge” for planned U.S. air strikes against Iran.

When questioned further as to why he believed the Bush Administration had any plans for such strikes he responded, “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »