PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-03-29, 04:40:48
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 968926 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Armed Soldiers To Replace Cops On Danish Streets

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-29/armed-soldiers-replace-cops-danish-streets

Even as Europe's political establishment professes its liberal ideals by accepting - or in the case of the ongoing spat between Brussels and Central Europe, forcing others to accept -  as many refugees as humanitarian virtue signalling will require, the true face of Europe is gradually emerging behind the scenes, and according to The Local.de, starting today armed soldiers from the Danish Armed Forces (Forsvaret) will replace police officers at both Denmark’s southern border to Germany and at potential terror targets in Copenhagen.

According to the Danish National Police (Rigspolitiet) and Copenhagen Police, 160 soldiers will patrol the border and take over guard duties at Jewish institutions including the Great Synagogue in central Copenhagen.

    The synagogue has been under constant police protection since a Danish-born terrorist of Palestinian descent shot and killed 37-year-old Dan Uzan, a volunteer security guard, outside the building in February 2015. The gunman, Omar El-Hussein, had earlier in the night opened fire with an automatic rifle outside a cultural centre hosting a free speech event, killing 55-year-old Finn Nørgaard and injuring police officers. El-Hussein was later shot and killed by police.

    The soldiers’ role at the German border was described as ancillary and will not entail actively checking the IDs of those entering the country. That role will still be filled by police officers and members of the Danish Home Guard (Hjemmeværnet), which has been active in border checks since April 2016.


The plan to put armed military soldiers at the border and potential terror targets has been under discussion for well over a year, or not long after Europe realized the consequences of the great welcome party thrown by Angela Merkel in 2015. The official explanation is that it is being implemented as a way "to ease the workload of an overworked and undermanned police force." The unofficial, of course, is that the police desperately need help against an ongoing influx of potential terrorists.

The 160 soldiers will relieve the police force of the equivalent of 128 full-time police officers. According to news agency Ritzau, police currently use the equivalent of 456 full-time officers on border controls and patrolling potential terror targets.

Meanwhile, Denmark has long since lost the idealistic illusion it is a noble, humanitarian home welcoming the world's refugees. As the WaPo wrote last year,  "as Europe walls itself off, the continent is left to reckon with what’s become of its long- cherished humanitarian beliefs. And to many in Denmark, the chasm between reputation and reality looks particularly gaping.

“We’re losing respect for the values upon which we built our country and our European Union,” said Andreas Kamm, secretary general of the Danish Refugee Council. “It’s becoming very hard to defend human rights.”

    This Scandinavian nation of compulsively friendly people is celebrated by U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders as a ­social-welfare utopia, one that was recently judged the world’s happiest place. Ranking high in the country’s pantheon of heroes are those who protected Jews during the Holocaust or who helped the oppressed escape from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.

But when it came to those fleeing 21st-century conflicts on Europe’s doorstep, Denmark went into overdrive to broadcast its hostility. While Germany continued to welcome asylum seekers, and other European countries such as Sweden held their doors open for as long as they could, Denmark took a hard line almost from the beginning. The government slashed refugees’ benefits, then advertised the cuts in Lebanese newspapers. It enabled police to confiscate refugees’ valuables, including cash and jewelry. And authorities made it far more difficult for those already here to reunite with their families, upping the wait time from one year to three.

And now, just in case the measures were insufficient, heavily armed soliders will be there to make sure there are no more casualties as a result of Angela Merkel's "shared" generosity.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Grand strategy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy

Grand strategy or high strategy comprises the "purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community".[1] Military historian B. H. Liddell Hart states:

    The role of grand strategy – higher strategy – is to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations, towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal defined by fundamental policy.

    Grand strategy should both calculate and develop the economic resources and man-power of nations in order to sustain the fighting services. Also the moral resources – for to foster the people's willing spirit is often as important as to possess the more concrete forms of power. Grand strategy, too, should regulate the distribution of power between the several services, and between the services and industry. Moreover, fighting power is but one of the instruments of grand strategy – which should take account of and apply the power of financial pressure, and, not least of ethical pressure, to weaken the opponent's will. ...

    Furthermore, while the horizons of strategy is bounded by the war, grand strategy looks beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but so regulate their use as to avoid damage to the future state of peace – for its security and prosperity.[2]

Grand strategy expands on the traditional idea of strategy in three ways:[3]

    expanding strategy beyond military means to include diplomatic, financial, economic, informational, etc. means

    examining internal in addition to external forces – taking into account both the various instruments of power and the internal policies necessary for their implementation (conscription, for example)

    including consideration of periods of peacetime in addition to wartime

Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of primary versus secondary theaters in war, distribution of resources among the various services, the general types of armaments manufacturing to favor, and which international alliances best suit national goals. With considerable overlap with foreign policy, grand strategy focuses primarily on the military implications of policy. A country's political leadership typically directs grand strategy with input from the most senior military officials. Development of a nation's grand strategy may extend across many years or even multiple generations.

The concept of grand strategy has been extended to describe multi-tiered strategies in general, including strategic thinking at the level of corporations and political parties. In business, a grand strategy is a general term for a broad statement of strategic action.[citation needed] A grand strategy states the means that will be used to achieve long-term objectives. Examples of business grand strategies that can be customized for a specific firm include: concentration, market development, product development, innovation, horizontal integration, divestiture, and liquidation.

Limits

Strategy is considered "the essential ingredient for making war either politically effective or morally tenable."[23] Without strategy, power is a "loose cannon and war is mindless."[23] Because strategy is necessary, however, does not mean that it is possible. Political scientist Richard K. Betts has detailed some of the critiques raised by skeptics regarding the feasibility and practicability of strategy, explaining "[t]o skeptics, effective strategy is often an illusion because what happens in the gap between policy objectives and war outcomes is too complex and unpredictable to be manipulated to a specified end."[24] Beyond the difficulty of organizing resources for effective grand strategy, Betts explores both the retrospective fallacy of coherence – the tendency to see the actions of states as more coherent and purposeful than they actually were or to assume particular actions and choices as more decisive in the outcome of events than they actually were – and the prospective fallacy of control – the tendency of policymakers to believe they can exert far greater influence over events than they can. Betts highlights 10 of the skeptics' critiques that question the predictability of strategy.

    Critique 1: Luck Versus Genius. Strategy is an illusion because it is impractical to judge in advance which risk is reasonable or which strategy is less justifiable than another. The illusion persists because observers confuse what they know about results of past strategic choices with what they can expect strategies to know before the choices are tested. Almost any strategy can be rationalized and no rationale falsified at the time that a strategy must be chosen.

    Critique 2: Randomness Versus Prediction. Strategy is an illusion because results do not follow plans. Complexity and contingency preclude controlling causes well enough to produce desired effects. Hindsight reveals little connection between the design and denouement of strategies. The problem before the fact appears to be estimating risk (probability of failure), but the record after the fact suggests that the real problem is pure uncertainty.

    Critique 3: Psychoanalysts Versus Conscious Choice. Strategy is an illusion because leaders do not understand what motives drive them, and they delude themselves about what they are really trying to do. They use war not for manifest political purposes but for subliminal personal ones, so the link between political ends and military means is missing at the outset.

    Critique 4: Cognition Versus Complex Choice. Cognitive constraints on individual thought processes limit strategists’ ability to see linkages between means and ends, or to calculate comprehensively.

    Critique 5: Culture Versus Coercion. Coercive strategies aimed at an adversary’s will depend on communication. Cultural blinders prevent the common frames of reference necessary to ensure that the receiver hears the message that the signaler intends to send.

    Critique 6: Friction Versus Fine-Tuning. Even if cultural blinders do not foreordain deafness when coercive signals are sent, normal operational friction delays execution of plans and decouples signals from the events to which they are meant to respond. Strategy that depends on coupling then collapses.

    Critique 7: Goal Displacement Versus Policy Control. Organizational processes deflect attention from policymakers’ priorities to implement organizations’ habits of operation and institutional interests. Means may be applied effectively toward goals, but only to the instrumental goal of the operations, rather than the higher political objectives meant to govern strategy.

    Critique 8: War Versus Strategy. Strategy is an illusion because practice reverses theory. In theory, strategy shapes the course of war to suit policy. In actual war, the target resists strategy and counters it, confounding plans, and redirecting strategy and policy to suit the unanticipated requirements for operational success. This puts the cart before the horse and negates the rational basis for strategy.

    Critique 9: Democracy Versus Consistency. The logic of strategy depends on clarity of preferences, explicitness of calculation, and consistency of choice. Democratic competition and consensus building work against all of these.

    Critique 10: Compromise Versus Effectiveness. Compromise between opposing preferences is the key to success in politics but to failure in military strategy. Since political leaders have the last word on strategy in a democracy, they tend to resolve political debates about whether to use forces massively or not at all by choosing strategic half-measures that turn out to serve no good objectives at all.[25]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Military occupation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

Military occupation is effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[1][2][3][4] Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[2][5][6][7]

Military government may be broadly characterized as the administration or supervision of occupied territory, or as the governmental form of such an administration. Military government is distinguished from martial law, which is the temporary rule by domestic armed forces over disturbed areas.

The rules of military government are delineated in various international agreements, primarily the Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as established state practice. The relevant international conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentaries, and other treaties by military scholars provide guidelines on such topics as rights and duties of the occupying power, protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners of war, coordination of relief efforts, issuance of travel documents, property rights of the populace, handling of cultural and art objects, management of refugees, and other concerns which are very important both before and after the cessation of hostilities. A country that establishes a military government and violates internationally agreed upon norms runs the risk of censure, criticism, or condemnation. In the current era, the practices of military government have largely become a part of customary international law, and form a part of the laws of war.

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare specify that "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called "military government." Neither the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions specifically define or distinguish an act of "invasion". The terminology of "occupation" is used exclusively.

Military occupation and the laws of war

From the second half of the 18th century onwards, international law has come to distinguish between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation,[citation needed] the difference between the two being originally expounded upon by Emerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758).[citation needed] The clear distinction has been recognized among the principles of international law since the end of the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century.[citation needed] These customary laws of belligerent occupation which evolved as part of the laws of war gave some protection to the population under the military occupation of a belligerent power.[citation needed]

The Hague Convention of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[8] The first two articles of that section state:

    Art. 42.
    Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
    The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

    Art. 43.
    The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

In 1949 these laws governing belligerent occupation of an enemy state's territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected persons in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue.

Article 6 restricts the length of time that most of GCIV applies:

    The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
    In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
    In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:

    Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state's territory:

    Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Protocol I (1977): "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" has additional articles which cover military occupation but many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to this additional protocol.

In the situation of a territorial cession as the result of war, the specification of a "receiving country" in the peace treaty merely means that the country in question is authorized by the international community to establish civil government in the territory. The military government of the principal occupying power will continue past the point in time when the peace treaty comes into force, until it is legally supplanted.

"Military government continues until legally supplanted" is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914.

Beginning of military government


There does not have to be a formal announcement of the beginning of "military government," nor is there any requirement of a specific number of people to be in place, or "on site" before military government can be said to have commenced.

See Birkhimer, p. 25–26:

    No proclamation of part of the victorious commander is necessary to the lawful inauguration and enforcement of military government. That government results from the fact that the former sovereignty is ousted, and the opposing army now has control. Yet the issuing such proclamation is useful as publishing to all living in the district occupied those rules of conduct which will govern the conqueror in the exercise of his authority. Wellington, indeed, as previously mentioned, said that the commander is bound to lay down distinctly the rules according to which his will is to be carried out. But the laws of war do not imperatively require this, and in very many instances it is not done. When it is not, the mere fact that the country is militarily occupied by the enemy is deemed sufficient notification to all concerned that the regular has been supplanted by a military government.

The occupying power

The terminology of "the occupying power" as spoken of in the laws of war is most properly rendered as "the principal occupying power," or alternatively as "the occupying power." This is because the law of agency is always available (When the administrative authority for the military occupation of particular areas is delegated to other troops, a "principal -- agent" relationship is in effect).[9]

Because the law of agency is a very general pattern, primarily appliable in this case as the means of regulating the relationships between the said "powers", but a question however in which considerations of logistics are sometimes to be taken in consideration, that definition is not always appliable outside of those contexts which can be analysed by analogy as related to warlording, even though it does relate more generally to all possible types of military coalitions.

In most contexts determined by the application of the defined and modern laws of war, delegation to agencies generally tends to relating to civilian organizations. Juridical considerations like the above remain in the other cases merely consensual between the said powers. For example, in 1948 the U.S. Military Tribunal in Nuremberg states:

    In belligerent occupation the occupying power does not hold enemy territory by virtue of any legal right. On the contrary, it merely exercises a precarious and temporary actual control. This can be seen from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations which grants certain well limited rights to a military occupant only in enemy territory which is 'actually placed' under his control.

[10]

The conqueror is the principal occupying power.

End of military government

Rule: Military occupation continues until legally supplanted. According to Eyal Benvenisti, military occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition."[11]

This is explained as follows. For the situation where no territorial cession is involved, the military government of the principal occupying power will end with the coming into force of the peace settlement.

    Example: (1) Japan after WWII. Japan regained its sovereignty with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on April 28, 1952. In other words, a civil government for Japan was in place and functioning as of this date.

In the situation of a territorial cession, there must be a formal peace treaty. However, the military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty.

    Example: (1) Puerto Rico after the Spanish–American War. Military government continued in Puerto Rico past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and only ended on May 1, 1900 with the beginning of Puerto Rico's civil government.
    Example: (2) Cuba after the Spanish–American War. Military government continued in Cuba past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and only ended on May 20, 1902 with the beginning of the Republic of Cuba's civil government.

Hence, at the most basic level, the terminology of "legally supplanted" is interpreted to mean "legally supplanted by a civil government fully recognized by the national (or "federal") government of the principal occupying power."

List of military occupations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations

This article presents a list of military occupations. Only military occupations since the customary laws of belligerent military occupation were first clarified and supplemented by the Hague Convention of 1907[1] are included In this article.

Military occupation is a type of effective control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign, and provisional in nature.[2][3][4] Military occupation is distinguished from annexation[a] by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[3][5][6][7]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Power behind the throne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_behind_the_throne

The phrase "power behind the throne" refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of a high-ranking office, such as a head of state. In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or nominal subordinate of a political leader (often called a "figurehead") who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through possessing great influence and/or skillful manipulation.

The original concept of a power behind the throne was a Medieval-era figure of speech referring to the fact that the king's policies could be set by a counselor not seated in the throne but standing behind it—perhaps whispering in the king's ear—out of common sight. Among the earliest examples of such powerful advisors were the Mayors of the Palace under the Merovingian kings.

In history

Historical examples of a "power behind the throne" include: Nogai Khan, Mamai and Edigu in the Golden Horde; Diego Portales of Chile; Chancellor of Germany and Minister President of Prussia Otto von Bismarck, with German Emperor and King of Prussia William I as a de facto figurehead; Martin Bormann of Nazi Germany.

The Genrō had this role in Meiji period of Japan.

Another example is the rule of Pol Pot in Cambodia from 1975-78, who led the Khmer Rouge to victory following a devastating civil war. King Norodom Sihanouk returned to reign over Cambodia, but held no executive power.

In the United States, Edith Wilson – the second wife of President Woodrow Wilson – took over many of the routine duties and details of the government after her husband had been incapacitated by a stroke. Another modern example was Deng Xiaoping in China, who was recognized as China's paramount leader without holding the position of either General Secretary, head of state or head of government.

Much earlier examples that come to mind, are the magistri militum of the later decades of the Western Roman Empire. Examples of such are Stilicho the general of Emperor Honorius, Aetius, the power behind the throne of Honorius' nephew Valentinian III, Ricimer the puppet master of Emperors Avitus, Majorian, Libius Severus, Procopius Anthemius and Olybrius, and then finally Flavius Orestes, the father of the usurper emperor Romulus Augustulus, and the Germanic chieftain Odoacer, who were the masters in the West during the reigns of Emperor Julius Nepos and then Orestes' son, the aforementioned Romulus. Odoacer then deposed the figurehead Roman ruler, captured and executed Orestes, and established his own Italian kingdom as the Dux Italiae, only to be overthrown by the Ostrogothic chieftain Theodoric on the behest of the Eastern Emperor Zeno.

In Latin America, a good example was Joseph-Marie Córdoba Montoya during the Presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994). Córdoba Montoya, a French naturalized Mexican, was the Head of the Office of the Presidency, and was considered the second-most powerful man in Mexico at the time.[1] Another example in the same region is the one of the former general Manuel Noriega, who was the military leader and the de facto chief of state of Panama from 1983 to 1989.

Related terms

A related term is éminence grise (French: "gray eminence"), a powerful advisor or decision-maker who operates secretly or otherwise unofficially. This phrase originally referred to Cardinal de Richelieu's right-hand man, François Leclerc du Tremblay (also known as the Père Joseph), a Capuchin friar who wore grey robes. Because the Cardinal de Richelieu, the power behind the throne of King Louis XIII of France, as a Catholic cardinal was styled Son Eminence ("His Eminence"), his alter ego Père Joseph was called l'éminence grise (which is also the English title of his biography by Aldous Huxley). Martin Bormann was referred to as the Brown Eminence, brown referring to the brown uniform of the Nazi Party.

The modern usage of the term Proconsul, as analogy for a person from a foreign power manipulating another country's internal affairs, is also referred as the power behind the throne.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg64801#msg64801


Abraham in religious traditions

Overview

Abraham is given a high position of respect in three major world faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism he is the founding father of the Covenant, the special relationship between the Jewish people and God – a belief which gives the Jews a unique position as the Chosen People of God. In Christianity, the Apostle Paul taught that Abraham's faith in God – preceding the Mosaic law – made him the prototype of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised. The Islamic prophet Muhammad claimed Abraham, whose submission to God constituted Islam as a "believer before the fact" and undercut Jewish claims to an exclusive relationship with God and the Covenant.[16]


http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg64935#msg64935


THE NATURE OF THE COVENANT

The Abrahamic Covenant, as stated before, was unconditional, predicated on Abraham's faith in the true God. There were many promises that came with the covenant such as, to make Abraham a great nation, to bless him to make his name great and to make him a blessing, to bless them that bless him and to curse them that curse him; and finally, that in him [or through his seed] all nations of the earth will be blessed.

The fact that God had promised to bless Abraham's offspring, without a showing of their faith or obedience proves also that this Covenant was unconditional. Later on, God even tells Moses of His disappointment with the Israelites prior to their entering the promised land, but says that He will allow them to still enter the land because of the promise He had made to Abraham.

Although God made no statement to Abraham concerning the obedience of his heirs, He must have felt that they should obey Him as Abraham did, or that their failure to "walk before him" would hamper their receiving the blesings; for God instituted a law covenant as a way of bringing them into obedience. Biblical records indicate that while the Israelites were encamped in the wilderness, God instituted the Mosaic Law Covenant mentioned above, for He was not able to abide with them in their present spiritual state of disobedience. This could also indicate, and very strongly I might add, that Yahweh had known beforehand that He would bring the the Israelites into submission through the Law Covenant, and thereby made the promises to Abraham. So the Law Covenant, a covenant requiring very strict obedience, would not nullify the Abrahamic Covenant, but would aid the Israelites in obtaining the promises already made to them.[to add reference]. For the Christian, such spiritual aid would come through the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ.

In respect to the blessing that was promised to come through Abraham's seed [Christ], God made a statement that corroborates the belief that Christ was the promised seed, for it reveals that God viewed Himself as the nations' promised blessing. God says, "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield and your exceeding great reward" (Gen. 15:1).


http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg65031#msg65031


Pew's research also suggests there are likely to be more Muslims than Christians in the world by 2070, with Islam's share of global population equalling that of Christianity at just above 30% each by 2050.



---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Conflation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation

Conflation happens when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity, and the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall.

Communication and reasoning

The result of conflating concepts may give rise to fallacies of ambiguity, including the fallacy of four terms in a categorical syllogism. For example, the word "bat" has at least two distinct meanings: a flying animal, and a piece of sporting equipment (such as a baseball bat or cricket bat). If these meanings are not distinguished, the result may be the following categorical syllogism, which may be seen as a joke (pun):

        All bats are animals.
        Some wooden objects are bats.
        Therefore, some wooden objects are animals.

Logical conflation

Using words with different meanings can help clarify, or can cause real confusion. English words with multiple (verb) meanings can be illustrated by instances in which a motion is merged with or a causation with manner,[3] e.g. The bride floated towards her future. In this example, the bride may: Be married on a boat, airplane, or hot-air balloon, etc. —not all marriages occur in a church.[4] She could be gracefully walking the aisle towards matrimony.[5] The verb "float" has multiple meanings, and both verb meanings in the example may be proper uses of a bride "floating" toward a future. The "manner" of the scene, described by further context, would explain the true meaning of the sentence.

In an alternate illustrative example, respect is used both in the sense of "recognise a right" and "have high regard for". We can recognise someone's right to the opinion the United Nations is secretly controlled by alien lizards on the moon, without holding this idea in high regard. But conflation of these two different concepts leads to the notion that all ideological ideas should be treated with respect, rather than just the right to hold these ideas. Conflation in logical terms is very similar to, if not identical to, equivocation.

Deliberate idiom conflation is the amalgamation of two different expressions. In most cases, the combination results in a new expression that makes little sense literally, but clearly expresses an idea because it references well-known idioms.

Types


All conflations fit into one of two major categories: "congruent" conflations and "incongruent" conflations.

Congruent conflations


Congruent conflations are the more ideal, and more sought-after, examples of the concept. These occur when the two root expressions reflect similar thoughts. For example, "look who's calling the kettle black" can be formed using the root expressions "look who's talking" and "the pot calling the kettle black". These root expressions really mean the same thing: they are both a friendly way to point out hypocritical behavior. Of course, "look who's calling the kettle black" does not directly imply anything, yet the implication is understood because the conflation clearly refers to two known idioms.

An illustrative conflation brings together two Roman Catholic saints named Lazarus. One, a lame beggar covered with sores which dogs are licking, appears in the New Testament (Luke 16:19–31).[6] The other, Lazarus of Bethany, is identified as the man whom Jesus raised from the dead (John 11:41–44).[7] The beggar's Feast Day is June 21, and Lazarus of Bethany's day is December 17.[8] However, both saints are depicted with crutches; and the blessing of dogs, associated with the beggar saint, usually takes place on December 17, the date associated with the resurrected Lazarus. The two characters' identities have become conflated in most cultural contexts, including the iconography of both saints.[9]

Incongruent conflations


Incongruent conflation occurs when the root expressions do not mean the same thing, but share a common word or theme. For example, "a bull in a candy store" can be formed from the root expressions "a bull in a china shop" and "a kid in a candy store". The latter expression paints a picture of someone ("a kid") who is extraordinarily happy and excited, whereas the former brings to mind the image of a person ("a bull") who is extremely clumsy, indelicate, not suited to a certain environment, prone to act recklessly, or easily provoked. The conflation expresses both of these ideas at the same time. Without context, the speaker's intention is not entirely clear.

An illustrative conflation seems to merge disparate figures as in Santería. St. Lazarus is conflated with the Yoruba deity Babalu Aye, and celebrated on December 17,[8] despite Santería's reliance on the iconography associated with the begging saint whose Feast Day is June 21.[9] By blending the identity of the two conflated St. Lazarus individuals with the identity of the Babalu Aye, Santería has gone one step further than the conflation within Catholicism, to become the kind of religious conflation known as syncretism, in which deities or concepts from two different faiths are conflated to form a third.

Humorous conflations


Idiom conflation has been used as a source of humor in certain situations. For example, the Mexican character El Chapulín Colorado once said

    "Mas vale pájaro en mano que dios lo ayudará...no, no...Dios ayuda al que vuela como pájaro...no... bueno, la idea es esa."

meaning

    "A bird in the hand will get the worm...no, wait...The early bird is worth two in the bush...no... well, that's the idea."

by combining two popular expressions:

    "Más vale pájaro en mano que cientos volando" ("A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.")
    "Al que madruga Dios lo ayuda" ("The early bird gets the worm.")

This was typical of the character, and he did it with several other expressions over the course of his comedy routine.[citation needed]

In popular culture, identities are sometimes intentionally conflated. In the early 2000s, the popular American actors Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were dating, and the tabloid press referred to them playfully as a third entity, Bennifer.[10]

Taxonomic conflation

In taxonomies, a conflative term is always a polyseme.[11]

Polysemy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy

Polysemy (/pəˈlɪsɪmi/ or /ˈpɒlɪsiːmi/;[1][2] from Greek: πολυ-, poly-, "many" and σῆμα, sêma, "sign") is the capacity for a sign (such as a word, phrase, or symbol) to have multiple meanings (that is, multiple semes or sememes and thus multiple senses), usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field. Polysemy is thus distinct from homonymy – or homophony – which is an accidental similarity between two words (such as bear the animal, and the verb to bear); while homonymy is often a mere linguistic coincidence, polysemy is not.

Charles Fillmore and Beryl Atkins' definition stipulates three elements: (i) the various senses of a polysemous word have a central origin, (ii) the links between these senses form a network, and (iii) understanding the 'inner' one contributes to understanding of the 'outer' one.[3]

Polysemy is a pivotal concept within disciplines such as media studies and linguistics. The analysis of polysemy, synonymy, and hyponymy and hypernymy is vital to taxonomy and ontology in the information-science senses of those terms. It has applications in pedagogy and machine learning, because they rely on word-sense disambiguation and schemas.[citation needed]

Polysemes

A polyseme is a word or phrase with different, but related senses. Since the test for polysemy is the vague concept of relatedness, judgments of polysemy can be difficult to make. Because applying pre-existing words to new situations is a natural process of language change, looking at words' etymology is helpful in determining polysemy but not the only solution; as words become lost in etymology, what once was a useful distinction of meaning may no longer be so. Some apparently unrelated words share a common historical origin, however, so etymology is not an infallible test for polysemy, and dictionary writers also often defer to speakers' intuitions to judge polysemy in cases where it contradicts etymology. English has many polysemous words. For example, the verb "to get" can mean "procure" (I'll get the drinks), "become" (she got scared), "understand" (I get it) etc.

In vertical polysemy a word refers to a member of a subcategory (e.g., 'dog' for 'male dog').[4] A closely related idea is metonymy, in which a word with one original meaning is used to refer to something else connected to it.

There are several tests for polysemy, but one of them is zeugma: if one word seems to exhibit zeugma when applied in different contexts, it is likely that the contexts bring out different polysemes of the same word. If the two senses of the same word do not seem to fit, yet seem related, then it is likely that they are polysemous. The fact that this test again depends on speakers' judgments about relatedness, however, means that this test for polysemy is not infallible, but is rather merely a helpful conceptual aid.

The difference between homonyms and polysemes is subtle. Lexicographers define polysemes within a single dictionary lemma, numbering different meanings, while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata. Semantic shift can separate a polysemous word into separate homonyms. For example, check as in "bank check" (or Cheque), check in chess, and check meaning "verification" are considered homonyms, while they originated as a single word derived from chess in the 14th century. Psycholinguistic experiments have shown that homonyms and polysemes are represented differently within people's mental lexicon: while the different meanings of homonyms (which are semantically unrelated) tend to interfere or compete with each other during comprehension, this does not usually occur for the polysemes that have semantically related meanings.[5][6][7][8] Results for this contention, however, have been mixed.[9][10][11][12]

For Dick Hebdige[13] polysemy means that, "each text is seen to generate a potentially infinite range of meanings," making, according to Richard Middleton,[14] "any homology, out of the most heterogeneous materials, possible. The idea of signifying practice—texts not as communicating or expressing a pre-existing meaning but as 'positioning subjects' within a process of semiosis—changes the whole basis of creating social meaning".

One group of polysemes are those in which a word meaning an activity, perhaps derived from a verb, acquires the meanings of those engaged in the activity, or perhaps the results of the activity, or the time or place in which the activity occurs or has occurred. Sometimes only one of those meanings is intended, depending on context, and sometimes multiple meanings are intended at the same time. Other types are derivations from one of the other meanings that leads to a verb or activity.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The Saker's most important article to date, with extremely interesting discussion in the comments!

A crash course on the true causes of “antisemitism”

http://thesaker.is/a-crash-course-on-the-true-causes-of-antisemitism/

This article was written for the Unz Review.

This is a topic which has had so much written about it that you could fill an entire city library with books entirely dedicated to this topic. Marx took a shot at it. As did Sartre. There were, of course, also plenty of good books written on this topic, but rather than list them all, I want to suggest a few simple common sense points and then go to what I consider an authoritative explanation of this thing we call “antisemitism” and which, of course, has nothing to do with Semites.

So first, let’s dump this silly term and replace it by a simple and straightforward one: judeophobia. Just like any other phobia (say, for example, russophobia) the phobia of X is the 1) fear and/or hatred of X. Some people hate Jews, others fear them (think of the “fear of the Jews” in the Scripture), some do both. So judeophobia seems both logical and uncontroversial to me.

Second, it is a truism to say that everything in the universe has a cause. That includes phobias. Including russophobia and judeophobia. For example, I would be the first person to admit that there are objective characteristics of the Russian people which makes other people fear and hate them. Like the fact that all western attempts at conquering Russia have failed. Or that the Russians have always, and still are, rejecting the Papacy. Just these two factors will create plenty of russophobia in the West, for sure.

So, the next thing we can ask ourselves is what is it in Jews which causes judeophobia. Alas, before I look into this, I need to clarify a number of assumptions I make.

The first one is that Jews are not a race or ethnicity. To prove that, I defer to Shlomo Sand’s book “The Invention of the Jewish People”. As I explained elsewhere, Jews are a tribe: A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. However, I also fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are not a race, but that Jewish culture/politics/ideology is racist (more about that later).

Next, there is also what is commonly known as “Judaism”. That, by the way, is also a misnomer, at least if by “Judaism” you refer the faith of the Old Testament, the faith of the Ancient Israel, the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers”. Modern “Judaism” which was created well after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD. Modern “Judaism” ought be to called “Pharisaic Talmudism” and its true creators are Shimon bar Yochia, Maimonides (aka “Rambam” in the video below), Joseph Karo and Isaac Luria. The reason why this religion ought to be referred to as Pharisaic Talmudism is modern Judaism is the continuation of the sect of the Pharisees (the only Jewish sect which survived the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple – all modern forms of “Judaism” trace their roots to the Pharisees) and that it’s main source of authority is the Talmud, a collection of writings based on the ideas of the sect of the Pharisees and complied from the beginning of the 2nd century. To separate them from non-religious Jews, some authors have offered the term “Judaic” to describe a person adhering to this faith. Seems reasonable to me.

Here is the key thing, while many modern Jews are non-religious and really members of a self-described Jewish tribe, there is no such thing in history as a “Jewish culture” distinct from Pharisaic Talmudism. Remember that national categories are recent creations from the 18th and 19th centuries. For most of history people defined them in reference to 1) their place of residence or birth 2) their religious affiliation and 3) the identity of the ruler they were subjects of. In contrast, nationality and ethnicity are largely modern concepts. The only thing common to a Jew from the Middle-East, Central Europe and North Africa would be teachings of Pharisaic Talmudism. It is only logical therefore to look at this unique common characteristic to try to identify the causes of the hatred and fear Jews have inspired pretty much everywhere they have ever resided.

I will use two official Jewish sources to ascertain the causes of antisemitism, first the Simon Wiesenthal Multi-Media Learning Center’s website and a lecture by Rabbi David Bar Hayim.

Here is what the Simon Wiesenthal Center writes on the page “Why The Jews? The Patterns of Persecution”

    Jewish communities existed continuously in Europe for over 2,000 years. Many of these communities were older than the countries in which they existed. Nevertheless, as the countries of Europe developed, Jews were rarely given complete citizenship status. At best they were tolerated as guests. Their social and religious distinctiveness made them persistent targets for persecution; and such persecution, in turn, intensified the cohesiveness of Jewish communities.

    The emergence of Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe intensified the persecution of Jews. Since both the religious and political life of Europe became organized around the Christian faith, Jews were seen as outcasts, the deniers and “killers” of Christ. For millions of European Christians, for over 1600 years, the hatred and persecution of Jews was religiously sanctioned. Antisemitism intensified during the l9th and 20th century industrialization of Europe as Jews participated more directly in European economic and social life.

    By 1933, the patterns of economic, social, and personal persecution of European Jews were well established. Nazi racial antisemitism and propaganda amplified and manipulated these patterns, ultimately adding one deadly tenet–that all Jews must be eliminated.

This is the garden variety cop-out: they were older, but never given citizenship, they were tolerated as guests, their social and religious distinctiveness made them targets for persecution, then the Christians accused them of killing Christ, antisemitism was religiously sanctioned, then came the Nazis and added their racist propaganda. But it has a grain of truth buried deep inside the rest of the platitudes: “social and religious distinctiveness”. What are we talking about here exactly?

This sounds interesting so let’s immediately delve into it!

The following is a lecture by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim whose biography, and gently smiling face, you can find on Wikipedia. For our purposes, just the first paragraph will be enough. It says that Bar-Hayim is an “Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education dedicated to the Torah of Israel”. Not a lightweight by any means, and a man with established credentials. Now let’s listen to what he has to say.

I strongly encourage you to take the time to carefully listen to his entire lecture (1h47m) to not only convince yourself that my chosen excerpts are not partial or taken out of context, but also to get an emotional “feel” for the man who not only is an articulate speaker who is clearly used to teaching, but who also conveys a coherent picture of a man who gave these topics a great deal of thought and who has to courage to call things by their names rather than to “remain silent” like so many of his “politically correct” colleges.

So here is this lecture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8

also, and just in case this lecture would “mysteriously” disappear from YouTube following the publication of my article, I decided to re-upload it here:

http://www.myvi.ru/watch/Why-are-the-Rabbis-Silent-about-Gaza_RMl1JJ_ftUy7fjzY7Ehgug2

Next, here are a key statements from the beginning of this lecture posted along their time-stamp so you can check for their authenticity:

    09:20 The Torah teaches that the life of a Jew is more precious than the life of a non-Jew.
    10:00 God (HaShem) prefers Jews to non-Jews and gives them a special status.
    11:00 The notion that Jews and non-Jews are equally precious to God contradicts the spirit of the Torah from beginning to end.
    16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) “the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare” because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.
    25:16 Jews must assume that it is likely that any non-Jew they meet does not live by the Noahide Laws.

Here an explanation is needed about the so-called “Noahide Laws”. According to Wikipedia (I use it as the hyper-politically-correct source) the Noahide Laws “are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a binding set of laws for the “children of Noah” – that is, all of humanity”. Here are these laws as listed by Maimonides himself:

    Prohibition of Idolatry
    Prohibition of Blasphemy
    Prohibition of Homicide
    Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
    Prohibition of Theft
    Prohibition of Limb of a Living Creature
    Imperative of Legal System

Sounds “kinda not modern”, but hey, that is no “worse” than the 10 Commandants, right? Wrong! Wrong for two crucial reasons. First, the penalty for breaking any one of these laws, at least according to Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, is death (listen to the lecture for yourself!). Second, this list uses a euphemism when is speaks of “idolatry”. What is meant here is not some pagan blood ceremony to sacrifice babies to some god of thunder, but “Avodah Zarah”. How do I know that? Listen to the lecture again, the Rabbi is very clear about it. And what exactly is “Avodah Zarah”? It is “foreign worship” or, to put it simply, the religions of the aliens, the others, the nations, the goyim. This is exactly the accusation made by Pharisaic Judaics against Christianity: making “That Man” (the typical Talmudic reference to Christ) into an idol. True, during the Middle-Ages overt references to Christianity were obfuscated and even today to the question whether Avodah Zarah is applicable to Christianity the official answer is wonderfully hypocritical: Christianity is a “special type of avodah zarah is forbidden to Jews but permissible to gentiles, so that a non-Jew who engages in Christian worship commits no sin”. First, this is an explicit modern Jewish admission that those Jews who convert to Christianity are committing a crime deserving the death penalty. But, more importantly, this is clearly a cop-out as this “special type of avodah zarah” has no basis in traditional Pharisaic Talmudic teachings. So this might come as a shock to many, but according to Pharisaic Talmudists, all Christians deserve to be killed for the sin of idolatry. Feel the love…

Now here is the sad part, in the USA these rabidly anti-Christians laws have been proclaimed as the “bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization” by both President Reagan and Congress. And to think that these guys fancy themselves as “Christians”…

I am sure that there are those who are absolutely convinced that what I wrote above is a gross misrepresentation of fact, that there is no way “Judaism” would really teach any such horrors. Think again, and listen to the Rabbi himself:

    25:33 Those who do not keep the Seven Noahide Laws are all therefore guilty of a capital offense
    25:49 “Avoda Zara”, i.e. idolatry meaning Christianity was the most common offense.

Of course, for those who know anything about Pharisaic Talmudism none of the above will come as any surprise. After all, did the Rabbi not also clearly state that:

    16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) “the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare” because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.

Non-Jews are explicitly compared to snakes! He also says something similar later in the lecture:

    26:15 since you cannot bring a perishing non-Jew to court to establish his guilt, you take a neutral position by neither helping him nor killing him.

You got that? Since, like with snakes, it is impossible to tell a dangerous non-Jews apart from a safe one, you cannot just kill him. For that you need a ruling by a rabbinical court. But saving him is no option either, because he most likely deserves the death penalty (say, for being a Christian). So you do nothing when you see a non-Jew in danger or even perishing. Interestingly enough, the Rabbi is also asked if that kind of non-assistance to a person in danger could not negatively impact the reputation of Jews and he immediately replies:

    1:22:00 if not saving a non-Jew makes Jews look bad, then the Jew ought to lie about his motives

So it is okay to let a non-Jew die and, if challenged, just lie about it!

The key concept here is simple: Jews are more important to God and, therefore, to themselves than non-Jews. This is why

    1:00:30 there is no requirement to return a lost object to a non-Jew
    1:17:40 Jews can brake the sabbath to save a Jew but not a non-Jew because Jews do not consider all lives to be equal

I will stop the examples here. The Rabbi clearly says that the humanistic notion that all humans are equal is contrary to the entire spirit of the Torah. If after that you don’t get it….

What about the so-called Golden Rule about “do unto others”?

What about these:

    You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18 )
    What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. (Shabbath folio:31a, Babylonian Talmud)

Did you notice the key caveats “your kindsfolk” and “your fellow”. Pharisaic Talmudism interprets these passages are referring only to fellow Jews and not to the semi-bestial goyim! It is laughable to a Rabbi when he hears a non-Jew saying that all humans were created in the image and likeness of God. Pharisaic Talmudism explicitly contradicts that (and the Kabbalah even more so!). Still don’t agree? Which part of “ the humanistic notion that all humans are equal is contrary to the entire spirit of the Torah” don’t you get?!

The simple truth is that Pharisaic Talmudism (aka modern “Judaism”) is the only religion which teaches a God-revealed racism.

This is hardly a new discovery of mine. Just read Michael Hoffman’s superb magnum opus Judaism Discovered (available on Amazon and on his on his website). In fact, there have been thousands of books already written on this topic, and many are available online for download in various file formats. What makes the video by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim so interesting is that it is 1) official 2) recent 3) that he really confirms it all. But for those who, like myself and, I am sure, many readers here, have known about it for decades, this was absolutely nothing new.

A couple of crucial caveats here: there are many Jews out there (most, I would say) who are totally unaware of all this. Even “Conservative” and “Reform” synagogues don’t preach that too overtly (though sometimes even they do). This kind of religious racism is mostly taught in Orthodox Yeshivas and, of course, in various Haredi institutions in Israel. For these ignorant Jews any such explanations of the causes of antisemitism in world history are not only offensive (blaming the victim) but also completely unfair (“my family never said any such things!”). Second, while this kind of, frankly, demonic teachings have only been taught in religious circles, they nevertheless also have had a deep impact upon the outlook of many (but not all!) secular Jews many of whom might never have been told that all Christians deserve to be executed, but who still will have a profound and almost knee-jerk repulsion towards Christianity. The distance between Rabbi David Bar-Hayim and Sarah Silverman and her famous quote “I hope that Jews did kill Christ, I’d do it again in a second” is very, very short.

Finally, for all the (alas many) bone-headed racists out there, none of that Pharisaic ideology is transmissible by genes so please don’t give me that “all Jews” nonsense. Some Jews do espouse these views, others don’t. Remember, Jews are not a race or ethnicity, they are a tribe. A Jew who completely rejects all this religiously-sanctioned racism about goyims does not somehow still mysteriously carry in himself some “Talmudic bacillum” which can flare up and turn him overnight into a hate-filled racist.

    [Sidebar: For whatever it is worth, in my life I have seen more kindness and compassion from (secular) Jews than from my fellow Orthodox Christians. Very often in my life I have had secular Jews being like the Good Samaritan from the Gospel (Luke 10:25-37):

    And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

    And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

    Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

    And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

    Notice two things: first, Christ frontally debunks the racist interpretation of the words “thy neighbor” and, second, He also clearly commands us how we should treat all of our neighbors.]

So now we have it: the root causes of antisemitism are not to be found in some weird cause-less aberration common to every single nation on earth, but in the teachings of Pharisaic Talmudism. What is exceptionally pernicious is that by what could be referred to as cultural-osmosis non-religious Jews find themselves raised in a secular culture which still holds this kinds of beliefs, minus their external religious trappings.

Furthermore, there are many non-Jews who, when seeing both religious secular Jews equally hostile to their religion and traditions, come to the conclusion that “all Jews” are bad. Throw in enough politicians (on both sides) to bring a flame to this toxic mix and you end up with an inevitable explosion. Hence all the persecutions.

Judeophobia has its roots in the demonic teachings of the sect of the Pharisees whose religiously-sanctioned racism has, unfortunately, permeated the worldview of many secular Jews. As long as Orthodox rabbis will stick to their demented self-worship (this is real idolatry, by the way!), “antisemitism” will continue to “mysteriously” rear its ugly head.

Brecht was right, “’The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”. He just got the ‘belly’ wrong.

The Saker


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
THE RISING OF BRITAIN'S 'NEW POLITICS'

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-rising-of-britain-s-new-politics

As the Tories plot to get rid of Prime Minister Theresa May, John Pilger analyses the alternative Labour Party, specifically its foreign policy, which may not be what it seems.

6 October 2017

by John Pilger

Delegates to the recent Labour Party conference in the English seaside town of Brighton seemed not to notice a video playing in the main entrance.  The world's third biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, supplier to Saudi Arabia, was promoting its guns, bombs, missiles, naval ships and fighter aircraft.

It seemed a perfidious symbol of a party in which millions of Britons now invest their political hopes. Once the preserve of Tony Blair, it is now led by Jeremy Corbyn, whose career has been very different and is rare in British establishment politics.

Addressing the Labour conference, the campaigner Naomi Klein described the rise of Corbyn as "part of a global phenomenon. We saw it in Bernie Sanders' historic campaign in the US primaries, powered by millennials who know that safe centrist politics offers them no kind of safe future."

In fact, at the end of the US primary elections last year, Sanders led his followers into the arms of Hillary Clinton, a liberal warmonger from a long tradition in the Democratic Party.

As President Obama's Secretary of State, Clinton presided over the invasion of Libya in 2011, which led to a stampede of refugees to Europe. She gloated at the gruesome murder of Libya's president. Two years earlier, Clinton signed off on a coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. That she has been invited to Wales on 14 October to be given an honorary doctorate by the University of Swansea because she is "synonymous with human rights" is unfathomable.

Like Clinton, Sanders is a cold-warrior and "anti-communist" obsessive with a proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He supported Bill Clinton's and Tony Blair's illegal assault on Yugoslavia in 1998 and the invasions of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, as well as Barack Obama's campaign of terrorism by drone. He backs the provocation of Russia and agrees that the whistleblower Edward Snowden should stand trial. He has called the late Hugo Chavez - a social democrat who won multiple elections - "a dead communist dictator".

While Sanders is a familiar liberal politician, Corbyn may be a phenomenon, with his indefatigable support for the victims of American and British imperial adventures and for popular resistance movements.

For example, in the 1960s and 70s, the Chagos islanders were expelled from their homeland, a British colony in the Indian Ocean, by a Labour government. An entire population was kidnapped. The aim was to make way for a US military base on the main island of Diego Garcia: a secret deal for which the British were "compensated" with a discount of $14 million off the price of a Polaris nuclear submarine.

I have had much to do with the Chagos islanders and have filmed them in exile in Mauritius and the Seychelles, where they suffered and some of them "died from sadness", as I was told. They found a political champion in a Labour Member of Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn.

So did the Palestinians. So did Iraqis terrorised by a Labour prime minister's invasion of their country in 2003. So did others struggling to break free from the designs of western power. Corbyn supported the likes of Hugo Chavez, who brought more than hope to societies subverted by the US behemoth.

And yet, now Corbyn is closer to power than he might have ever imagined, his foreign policy remains a secret.

By secret, I mean there has been rhetoric and little else. "We must put our values at the heart of our foreign policy," said Corbyn at the Labour conference. But what are these "values"?

Since 1945, like the Tories, British Labour has been an imperial party, obsequious to Washington: a record exemplified by the crime in the Chagos islands.

What has changed? Is Corbyn saying Labour will uncouple itself from the US war machine, and the US spying apparatus and US economic blockades that scar humanity?

His shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, says a Corbyn government "will put human rights back at the heart of Britain's foreign policy". But human rights have never been at the heart of British foreign policy - only "interests", as Lord Palmerston declared in the 19th century: the interests of those at the apex of British society.

Thornberry quoted the late Robin Cook who, as Tony Blair's first Foreign Secretary in 1997, pledged an "ethical foreign policy" that would "make Britain once again a force for good in the world".

History is not kind to imperial nostalgia. The recently commemorated division of India by a Labour government in 1947 - with a border hurriedly drawn up by a London barrister, Gordon Radcliffe, who had never been to India and never returned - led to blood-letting on a genocidal scale.

Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day

Patrolling the gardens to keep the assassins away,

He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate

Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date

And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,

But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect

Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,

And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,

But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,

A continent for better or worse divided.


W.H. Auden, 'Partition'


It was the same Labour government (1945--51), led by Prime Minister Clement Attlee - "radical" by today's standards - that dispatched General Douglas Gracey's British imperial army to Saigon with orders to re-arm the defeated Japanese in order to prevent Vietnamese nationalists from liberating their own country. Thus, the longest war of the century was ignited.

It was a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, whose policy of "mutuality" and "partnership" with some of the world's most vicious despots, especially in the Middle East, forged relationships that endure today, often sidelining and crushing the human rights of whole communities and societies. The cause was British "interests" - oil, power, wealth.

In the "radical" 1960s, Labour's Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, set up the Defence Sales Organisation (DSO) specifically to boost the arms trade and make money from selling lethal weapons to the world. Healey told Parliament, "While we attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable market."

The doublethink was quintessentially Labour. When I later asked Healey about this "valuable market", he claimed his decision made no difference to the volume of military exports. In fact, it led to an almost doubling of Britain's share of the arms market. Today, Britain is the second biggest arms dealer on earth, selling arms and fighter planes, machine guns and "riot control" vehicles, to 22 of the 30 countries on the British Government's own list of human rights violators.

Will this cease under a Corbyn government? The preferred model - Robin Cook's "ethical foreign policy" - is revealing. Like Jeremy Corbyn, Cook made his name as a backbencher and critic of the arms trade. "Wherever weapons are sold," wrote Cook, "there is a tacit conspiracy to conceal the reality of war" and "it is a truism that every war for the past two decades has been fought by poor countries with weapons supplied by rich countries".

Cook singled out the sale of British Hawk fighters to Indonesia as "particularly disturbing". Indonesia "is not only repressive but actually at war on two fronts: in East Timor, where perhaps a sixth of the population has been slaughtered... and in West Papua, where it confronts an indigenous liberation movement".

As Foreign Secretary, Cook promised "a thorough review of arms sales". The then Nobel Peace Laureate, Bishop Carlos Belo of East Timor, appealed directly to Cook: "Please, I beg you, do not sustain any longer a conflict which without these arms sales could never have been pursued in the first place and not for so very long." He was referring to Indonesia's bombing of East Timor with British Hawks and the slaughter of his people with British machine guns. He received no reply.

The following week Cook called journalists to the Foreign Office to announce his "mission statement" for "human rights in a new century". This PR event included the usual private briefings for selected journalists, including the BBC, in which Foreign Office officials lied that there was "no evidence" that British Hawk aircraft were deployed in East Timor.

A few days later, the Foreign Office issued the results of Cook's "thorough review" of arms sales policy. "It was not realistic or practical," wrote Cook, "to revoke licences which were valid and in force at the time of Labour's election victory". Suharto's Minister for Defence, Edi Sudradjat, said that talks were already under way with Britain for the purchase of 18 more Hawk fighters. "The political change in Britain will not affect our negotiations," he said. He was right.

Today, replace Indonesia with Saudi Arabia and East Timor with Yemen. British military aircraft - sold with the approval of both Tory and Labour governments and built by the firm whose promotional video had pride of place at the Labour Party conference - are bombing the life out of Yemen, one of the most impoverished countries in the world, where half the children are malnourished and there is the greatest cholera epidemic in modern times.

Hospitals and schools, weddings and funerals have been attacked. In Ryadh, British military personnel are reported to be training the Saudis in selecting targets.

In Labour's 2017 manifesto, Jeremy Corbyn and his party colleagues promised that "Labour will demand a comprehensive, independent, UN-led investigation into alleged violations... in Yemen, including air strikes on civilians by the Saudi-led coalition. We will immediately suspend any further arms sales for use in the conflict until that investigation is concluded."

But the evidence of Saudi Arabia's crimes in Yemen is already documented by Amnesty and others, notably by the courageous reporting of the British journalist Iona Craig. The dossier is voluminous.

Labour does not promise to stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia. It does not say Britain will withdraw its support for governments responsible for the export of Islamist jihadism. There is no commitment to dismantle the arms trade.

The manifesto describes a "special relationship [with the US] based on shared values... When the current Trump administration chooses to ignore them... we will not be afraid to disagree".

As Jeremy Corbyn knows, dealing with the US is not about merely "disagreeing". The US is a rapacious, rogue power that ought not to be regarded as a natural ally of any state championing human rights, irrespective of whether Trump or anyone else is President.

When Emily Thornberry linked Venezuela with the Philippines as "increasingly autocratic regimes" - slogans bereft of facts and ignoring the subversive US role in Venezuela - she was consciously playing to the enemy: a tactic with which Jeremy Corbyn will be familiar.

A Corbyn government will allow the Chagos islanders the right of return. But Labour says nothing about renegotiating the 50-year renewal agreement that Britain has just signed with the US allowing it to use the base on Diego Garcia from which it has bombed Afghanistan and Iraq.

A Corbyn government will "immediately recognise the state of Palestine". But it is silent on whether Britain will continue to arm Israel, continue to acquiesce in the illegal trade in Israel's illegal "settlements" and treat Israel merely as a warring party, rather than as an historic oppressor given immunity by Washington and London.

On Britain's support for Nato's current war preparations, Labour boasts that the "last Labour government spent above the benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP" on Nato. It says, "Conservative spending cuts have put Britain's security at risk" and promises to boost Britain's military "obligations".

In fact, most of the £40 billion Britain currently spends on the military is not for territorial defence of the UK but for offensive purposes to enhance British "interests" as defined by those who have tried to smear Jeremy Corbyn as unpatriotic.

If the polls are reliable, most Britons are well ahead of their politicians, Tory and Labour. They would accept higher taxes to pay for public services; they want the National Health Service restored to full health. They want decent jobs and wages and housing and schools; they do not hate foreigners but resent exploitative labour. They have no fond memory of an empire on which the sun never set.

They oppose the invasion of other countries and regard Blair as a liar.  The rise of Donald Trump has reminded them what a menace the United States can be, especially with their own country in tow.

The Labour Party is the beneficiary of this mood, but many of its pledges - certainly in foreign policy - are qualified and compromised, suggesting, for many Britons, more of the same.

Jeremy Corbyn is widely and properly recognised for his integrity; he opposes the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons; the Labour Party supports it. But he has given shadow cabinet positions to pro-war MPs who support Blairism, tried to get rid of him and abused him as "unelectable".

"We are the political mainstream now," says Corbyn. Yes, but at what price?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Judaism, Zionism and Conflation

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/10/9/judaism-zionism-and-conflation

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewish Anti Zionists are occasionally irritated by the ‘conflation’ of ‘Zionism and Judaism’ but the terms are inherently related.

Conflation is usually understood as the merging of two or more distinct sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one. Does this concept apply to Zionism and Judaism? Are Zionism and Judaism distinct terms? Are Jews and Zionism categorically different from each other? 

For example, can Americanism and exceptionalism be conflated? Can round and circular be conflated? The distinction between terms that are related can be confusing. But the relationship between Jews and Zionism is clear. This is also true of the relationship among Zionism, Jews and Judaism. These terms are intrinsically related politically, culturally, religiously and at times they form a metaphysical continuum. 

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, probably the most eloquent Torah Jew spokesperson, has repeatedly argued that those who‘conflate’ Judaism and Zionism are “either Zionists or anti-Semites.” But Zionism and Judaism, as we will see next,  are integrally related.

The vast majority of Rabbinical Jews see Judaism and Zionism as correlated precepts. This is not a recent phenomenon. As early as 1942, at the peak of WWII, 818 orthodox American rabbis signed a document reaffirming the essential bond between Zionism and Judaism. The Rabbis’ document reads, “the overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it.” We can also look to the Judaic teaching of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. Kook, who died in 1935, was the chief rabbi of Mandatory Palestine. He is considered one of the fathers of religious Zionism.  For Kook, Eretz Yisrael was the spatial centre of holiness in the world. Like other Zionist agitators, Kook rejected the galut (Jewish Diaspora). The messianic Zionist settler movement is largely inspired by Kook’s teaching.   

The Rabbis who subscribe to the Zionist enterprise clearly do not differentiate between Judaism and Zionism. For them, Zionism and Judaism are at the core of the contemporaneous Judaic call. These Rabbis do not conflate Zionism with Judaism: they simply do not differentiate the two.

But what about the so-called ‘anti Semites,’ do they ‘conflate’ Judaism and Zionism? Some critics of Israel argue that Zionist criminality is the outcome of Judaic dismissal of otherness. They point at some problematic segments within the Talmud and argue that Israeli brutality is a continuation of those inhumane teachings. Whether or not this argument is valid, the suggestion that Zionism inherited its brutality from Judaism suggests that the so called anti Semite’s understanding of Zionism and the Talmud are linked by a chain of causality, and is not a case of conflation.

So the rabbinical Zionists and the ‘anti Semites’ do not conflate Zionism and Judaism, but what about Israel and the Israelis? Israel is invested in a dialectical battle with the merger of Judaism and Zionism. Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish’ State not the ‘Judaic’ State. Secular Zionism has, since its inception,  had an ambivalent relationship with Rabbinical institutes. Though the rabbinical institutions in Israel have managed to dictate halakha law, Israeli political institutions have, at least until now, compartmentalised religious and civil matters.

While in Judaism (as in Islam), there is no dichotomy between the religio and the civil, Zionism promised to make Jews into‘people like all other people.’ This promise was inspired by Christian civilisation -- a social environment that endeavored to maintain a dichotomy between religion and civil laws. Zionism’s original promise to civilise the Jews was intended to liberate the newly invented Jewish ‘nation’ from its ‘reactionary’ religious heritage. This indicates that even the Israelis do not conflate Judaism and Zionism. They, somehow, differentiate between the two, although they probably admit to themselves that they often overlap.

But if Judaism and Zionism are not distinct notions and, as a result, conflation is not possible, it would also be wrong to argue, as many commentators do, that‘Judaism was hijacked by Zionism.’ If anything, the facts suggest the opposite. It was Zionism that was hijacked by Judaism. Zionism began as an anti Judaic movement. It promised to emancipate the Jews from their ‘reactionary’ past by means of a ‘homecoming’. It promised to civilise diaspora Jews and make them a part of a productive, functional and autonomous nation. Many early Zionist texts read like anti-Semitic tracts. They spew anti Jewish rants. But it didn’t take long for Judaism to contain the emerging tsunami of Early-Zionist ferocity and teach the Jews to love themselves once again. It is important to note that when Zionism was anti Judaic, universalist and humanist, it was a marginal movement. Hardly any Jews followed the few early Zionist idealists. However, as soon as Zionism became tribal, expansionist and even militant, its popularity amongst Jews grew rapidly. It is reasonable to argue that it was Rabbis like Kook and later the Chabbad sect that skillfully and wittingly integrated Zionism into their Judaic teaching. By doing so, they killed Zionist anti Judaic ferocity. They reunited the tribe.

It seems that no one conflates Judaism and Zionism, not the Rabbinical Zionist who see Judaism and Zionism as one,  nor the anti-Semite who sees Judaism and Zionism in causal terms. Even the Israelis do not conflate the two.  Those who reference to conflation may do so in order to sustain the confusion relating to Jews and their politics.

Kosher Trinity And Jewish Quantum Mechanics

While pre-emancipated Jews where at ease with their ethno-religious identity, the French revolution, emancipation and secularisation introduced complexity to identity issues for European Jews. Since then, secular Jews have found it difficult or even impossible to consolidate their tribal identity within the emerging universal discourse around them. They find it impossible to fuse their cultural racial orientation with their anti racist progressive political rants. Zionism offered a solution. It promised to take the Jews away, to remove the problem. But Zionism only managed to move the problem to a new place.

Diaspora Jews have developed different tactics to deal with their identity crises. Contemporary Jewish identity is shaped like a tri-polar magnetic field in which one pole is religion, another is race and the third is politics.

When Jewish politics is subject to criticism (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby, etc.) some Jews claim to be ‘racially offended’ in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When Jewish racism is subject to criticism (choseness, Israel race laws, etc.) some Jews are affronted by a perceived attack on their religion.  When the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching is disparaged, many Jews are quick to assert that they are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). We are confronting a quantum leap--an evasive identity that is morphing constantly. It moves rapidly within its kosher trinity field, it is everywhere and nowhere. The reason for this is that the Kosher Trinity makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and religion. The Kosher Trinity allows Jews to boast about their cultural symptoms and great achievements while claiming offense when any of these symptoms are discussed by others. This quantum model is set to suppress any possible dissent and avoid Jewish self-reflection. As much as you may find it hard to grasp what Jews are, Jews share the struggle to address who they are and what they are up to.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Hungarian MP: 'Christian duty to fight Satan's Soros plan to bring migrants into Europe'

https://www.sott.net/article/364079-Hungarian-MP-Christian-duty-to-fight-Satans-Soros-plan-to-bring-migrants-into-Europe

A Hungarian MP slammed billionaire George Soros and supporters for attempting to dilute the spirit of Europe with "the forced settlement of tens of millions of migrants." He claimed there is a Christian duty to fight what he called "Satan's Soros" plan.

The lawmaker in question, Andras Aradszki, who represents the Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP), claimed that "Soros and his comrades want to destroy the independence and values of nation states," as cited by the Budapest Beacon.

According to Aradszki this is happening "for the purpose of watering down the Christian spirit of Europe with the forced settlement of tens of millions of migrants."

"But the fight against Satan is a Christian duty. Yes, I speak of an attack by Satan, who is also the angel of denial, because they are denying what they are preparing to do - even when it is completely obvious. They frantically try to prove that there is no [refugee] quota, there is no compulsory settlement, and the Soros Plan does not exist," Aradszki noted.

"The national consultation is an outstanding opportunity for us to make our opinions known about Satan's Soros Plan," he concluded. On Sunday, the Chief Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Gyorgy Bakondi, warned of the implications of the "Soros Plan."

"This may have serious consequences for the sovereignty of member states, for the nations themselves, and also with regard to the security of European citizens," he pointed out.

Soros stated in 2015 that the "EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly."

"Adequate financing is critical," the billionaire wrote. "The EU should provide £10,000 (€15,000) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs - and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states."

Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has repeatedly blamed Hungarian-born Soros of fueling the refugee crisis in Europe, said that "Brussels has come under George Soros's influence."

"We have revealed the existence of the Soros plan, and the drafter himself admitted that it exists. We have placed it in the focus of politics," the prime minister said in an interview to public radio on Friday.

In July, Orban accused Soros of using the EU in order to create a "new, mixed, Muslimized Europe," according to AP. The prime minister said that Soros is now more powerful in Brussels than in Washington or Tel Aviv and he argued that European institutions should fight to limit his influence.

He noted that reforming Europe can only begin by stopping illegal migration into the EU and that Hungary's border defenses will help with that effort.

Late last month Orban called on Hungarians to participate in the government's public survey on the "Soros plan," noting that it will help the country shield itself from migration. The survey dubbed "national consultation" will ask Hungarians for their view on whether or not Hungary should become an immigrant country.

"We want a Hungarian Hungary and a European Europe," Orban said on the first day of parliament's autumn session.

Last week Goran Buldioski, director of Soros' Open Society Initiatives in Europe, told AP that Soros and his foundations support "more coherent and humane policies for helping to resettle migrants fleeing oppression and violence in their homelands" but that "there is no such thing as a global conspiracy against Hungary."

Hungary is engaged in a bitter row with the EU over the refugee relocation quotas, together with Poland and Slovakia. The issue dates back to the EU decision made in 2015 to rehouse some 160,000 refugees from Greece and Italy over a period of two years, only around 27,700 of whom have been settled so far.

Hungary claimed in September that its fences on the borders with Croatia and Serbia had helped to cut the inflow of migrants by 99.7 percent since 2015. The small inland nation now has one quarter of the length of its borders protected by a fence. The Hungarian border fence has been repeatedly criticized by other European countries, as well as by EU politicians, but Budapest has resisted pressure to remove it.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
He claimed there is a Christian duty to fight what he called "Satan's Soros" plan.

Erm.. was it not the Christian leadership that brought them here in the first place ?

Germany's Iron Lady Angela Merkel reveals she believes in God - and religion has always been her constant companion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228664/Angela-Merkel-believes-God-strong-Christian-beliefs.html

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has enlisted a heavyweight companion to fight alongside her in next year's general election - God.

A day after scrapping an unpopular medical charge and boosting benefits for stay-at-home mothers, Mrs Merkel has taken a leaf out of Tony Blair's book to declare that she has strong religious beliefs.

It is the first time that the former Lutheran minister's daughter, a cool-headed physicist who was raised in former Communist East Germany, has admitted that faith is a vital part of her life.

Religious leaders urge UK Prime Minister to do more for refugees


http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/09/12/484347/Theresa-May-pressured-to-help-refugees

British  Prime Minister Theresa May is being criticized by more than 200 religious leaders for her government’s lack of concern for refugees.

Faith leaders have signed an open letter to May calling for urgent changes to the government’s refugee policy, particularly to allow families to be reunited.

The letter said: "In the face of the unfolding human catastrophe, there are immediate and viable steps that the government can take to offer sanctuary to more refugees. We call on you to create safe, legal routes of travel, for example by adopting fair and humane family reunion policies for refugees.” 

Signatories to the letter are leaders from Britain’s major faiths: Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Zoroastrian.

“All our faiths teach us to alleviate suffering and share with those in need; many of our members and congregants are already active in helping refugees. We call on the Government to do more.”

The controlled opposition shares a similar position:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/19/theresa-may-to-chair-cobra-meeting-after-finsbury-park-terror-attack

Corbyn had visited the scene once he was alerted to it by officials, and later returned to meet community leaders.

He said: “This is a very multi-faith community. Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, all live around here. This is a microcosm of a community working together.

“An attack on a mosque, an attack on a synagogue, an attack on a church, is actually an attack on all of us. We have to protect each other’s faith, each other’s way of life. That’s what makes us a strong society and community.”

Believing in something that is not provably true, and supporting those views in an echo chamber of faith, is not a strong society Jeremy.. it is a mass delusion.
« Last Edit: 2017-10-11, 22:18:16 by evolvingape »


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Is Jeremy Corbyn on the road to Rome?

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.jeremy.corbyn.on.the.road.to.rome/113334.htm

Jeremy Corbyn is a long-time friend of Bruce Kent, the laicised Catholic priest and prominent CND campaigner. They have attended church together on at least one occason in the past.

In addition he is married to Laura Alvarez, from Mexico, a traditionally Catholic country.

At the funeral of Mary Turner, who was president of the GMB union, and who died in July, Corbyn was seen with his wife in the queue for Holy Communion. He also spoke at the funeral and paid his respects to her family and Mary's memory.

In the same way that someone who is not a member of the Labour Party can't just turn up and vote at a Labour Party Conference, the Catholic Church has strict rules about who can receive communion, which Corbyn will certainly know about. The Westminster Archdiocese, in which the funeral at Sacred Heart Church in Kilburn took place, expects people to be 'in full communion with the Catholic Church' if they wish to receive communion.

There are exceptions, but in general, Holy Communion is restricted to baptised and confirmed Catholics. If a baptised Anglican is on holiday and there is no Anglican church within reach, they can receive communion in an RC church.

At events where non-Catholics are likely to be present, such as funerals, Catholic priests will normally invite everyone to the altar rail, but make it clear that non-Catholics should request a blessing.

If Corbyn did actually go on to receive communion, and not merely a blessing, does this mean that he has converted? That he is no longer an agnostic?

A spokesman for the Labour leader told Christian Today: 'Jeremy has not converted to Catholicism.'

Nevertheless, Corbyn has certainly for decades been attracted by the social teaching of the Catholic Church, with its emphasis on justice for the poor and marginalised.

The story, revealed in the New Statesman, echoes those around former Prime Minister Tony Blair when he was still an Anglican. Blair joined his wife Cherie in the Catholic Church – but only after he left Downing Street.

It was common knowledge that Blair was on a journey to Rome. Cardinal Basil Hume, predecessor to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as Archbishop of Westminster, found he had no choice but to write to Blair in 1996 asking him to stop taking communion in Cherie's parish in Islington, the Church of St Joan of Arc.

Corbyn went to a CofE school but has always been understood to be agnostic, although he has never disclosed much about what he believes. In 2015 he said: 'I respect all faiths, I probably spend more time going to religious services than most people, of all types.'

Catholic Canon Law states that the salvation of souls in the Church must always be the supreme law. Maybe someone high up has decided the salvation of Jeremy Corbyn overrides the rules. That really would be God having the most fantastic sense of humour – if Corbyn does one day end up become Britain's first ever Roman Catholic Prime Minister. 


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Cultural Relativism

http://ironbarkresources.com/mc/mc07.htm

Many multiculturalists promote the idea of cultural relativism, i.e. "that each culture is of equal value, and should not be judged from the cultural perspectives of others". This actually means that no-one can pass judgement on another culture as that person's "value judgement" will be made on the basis of their own cultural values. In this manner of thinking, all cultures are therefore equal; and its adherents maintain that it cannot be said that other cultures, or certain cultural customs, are "wrong" or "inferior", as to do so would be to act as "culturally superior" or, at worst, even "racist".(44)

This half-baked notion would have us believe that the culture of a tribe of New Guinea cannibals is equal to the culture of the Ancient Egyptians. The "good" multiculturalist would maintain that this is so, while the rest of us may laugh at this ridiculous idea, pointing out the Ancient Egyptians' advances in mathematics, astronomy, transport, irrigation, architecture, etc., etc., etc. It would then be pointed out that, in our ignorance, we would've been making a "value judgement" based on our own culture, which is the "wrong" thing to do, and "politically incorrect" to say the least. Maybe we should never hold any opinions, nor judge any matter, ever again? But, of course, if we were ever to point out that it is part of our culture to hold such opinions, and form "value judgements", then wouldn't that be a great dilemma for the multiculturalists? You know the answer already: our cultural values are to be ignored; because, despite their ever-ready claims of cultural equality, multiculturalists place Australian culture a distant second to any other "ethnic" culture.

The absurdity of the argument of cultural relativism is also self-evident to anyone who thinks it through in its practical context. For instance, there will be times when the cultural practices of some ethnic minorities in Australia will be held to be against the law, which itself has been basically produced by, and is usually reflective of, the mainstream Australian culture. Cultural relativism is thus shown to be contradictory and unworkable.

In terms of the law, there are two matters to be pointed out. One, that a multiculturalist who says cultures can be maintained, but only subject to the law, has accepted a basic principle of assimilationism. Two, that there are multiculturalists who advocate that there should be "respect for cultural diversity reflected in the operation of the law by granting some multicultural minorities special consideration in the legal treatment of their otherwise illegal cultural and religious practices". In fact, legal decisions based on cultural considerations are already being enacted, from lighter sentences in some cases, to the allowing of Aboriginal law to operate instead of Australian law (such as the Northern Territory court which released an Aboriginal man, found guilty of a "stabbing manslaughter", on a good behaviour bond, partly in recognition that "under customary law ... [he] ... could expect to be speared through his thighs as a pay-back for the killing").(45)

Jan Pettman, an "anti-racist" lecturer, has pointed out some questions that cultural relativism avoids: "if values or interests conflict, whose should prevail? What happens if there are some values and practices we do not want in Australia? What is it that will ultimately hold us all together?".(46)

Cultural relativism is not only sheer folly, it is plain idiocy.

It is also interesting to note the words of Rush Limbaugh (publicised as "America's #1 radio talk-show host"):

    "One of the main vehicles used by liberals to attempt to de-legitimize "all that remains of national culture" for America is multiculturalism. By its very nature, multiculturalism holds that no civilization, no moral code, no way of living, is better than another. In general, it finds fault with little in most cultures - the exception being the actual nation of America, which is usually portrayed as an oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic nation with few redeeming qualities."(47)

Much the same can be said for Australia: Multiculturalists continuously denigrate and attack Australia's way of life - our culture - (as well as attacking that of other Westernised countries, in particular those of the English-speaking world) but rarely do they attack the cultures of foreign peoples (especially those of the Third World). Most multiculturalists seem to view criticism of such foreign cultures as "politically incorrect", or even "racist"; but have no such qualms over attacking the Australian way of life. They fail to realise that this double standard shows them to be fools and hypocrites. What they also fail to realise is that such double standards help to reveal the actual mentality evident behind the ideology of multiculturalism in this country, that of being anti-Australian, if not a form of anti-White racism (for many multiculturalists, this seems to be some sort of perverse self-hatred).

To further explain about their mentality being anti-Australian: For many multiculturalists, rather than their main driving force being to seek some form of "equality" for other cultures, their main driving force is to attack the Australian nation, its culture, way of life, institutions, its British/European population, and - most telling of all - its wealth. The fact that Australia is a wealthy nation, while many Third World countries are very poor, produces a style of thinking evident within the mentality of multiculturalism; a form of what has been termed "the White guilt complex".

It should be realised from this that multiculturalism is not pro-culture (foreign or otherwise) as it purports to be, but is actually anti-culture.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The Jewish and Christian view on female genital mutilation

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110570413000258

Abstract

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a practice involving the removal of all or parts of the female external genitalia. It has been documented in 28 African countries and in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, but due to increasing immigration from these countries to the western world, FGM has become a worldwide human rights and health issue. Contrary to the belief that it is a practice carried out by Muslims only, it is also practiced by Christians and a minority group of Ethiopian Jews. However, FGM is neither mentioned in the Torah, nor in the Gospels, and – like in Islam – bodily mutilation is condemned by both religions. In fact, FGM is a mix of mainly cultural and social factors which may put tremendous pressure on the members of the society in question.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), female genital mutilation (FGM), also referred to as “female circumcision” or “female cutting”, “comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” [1]. The WHO estimates that about 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM and that every year in Africa alone, about 3 million girls are at risk for genital mutilation [1]. FGM has been documented in 28 African countries and in some countries in Asia and the Middle East [2]. However, it has also become a human rights and health issue in western countries where the practice is continued by immigrants from countries where FGM is commonly performed [3]. For instance, the German organization “Terre des Femmes” estimates that about 30.000 girls and women living in Germany have undergone or are at risk of being subjected to FGM [4].

Given the fact that some Sunni Muslims legitimate FGM by quoting a controversial hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet Mohammed) in which the Prophet allegedly did not object to FGM provided cutting was not too severe [5,6] and that the least invasive type of FGM (partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce) is also called “Sunna Circumcision” [7], FGM is widely considered to be associated with Islam. However, during a conference held in Cairo/Egypt in 2006, Muslim scholars from various nations declared FGM to be un-islamic [8,9] and, in fact, the traditional cultural practice of FGM predates both Islam and Christianity. Herodotus wrote about FGM being practiced in Egypt as early as 500 BC [3], while the Greek geographer Strabo who visited Egypt in about 25 BC reported that one of the Egyptian customs was “to circumcise the males and excise the females” [10]. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FGM is actually practiced by Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups. There are countries, such as Nigeria, Tanzania and Niger, where the prevalence of FGM is even greater among Christian groups [11]. In Egypt, FGM is also practiced on Coptic girls [12], while in Ethiopia, the Beta Israel or Falashas, a Jewish minority, subject their girls to genital mutilation [5].

In this context, it will be interesting to have a look at the attitude of Christianity and Judaism toward FGM.

Jewish view on FGM

While, according to the Hebrew bible, circumcision is required for all male Jewish children in observance of God's commandment to Abraham (Genesis 12-17), female circumcision was never allowed in Judaism, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion [13]. Buff, in his letter to the editor, states that “any form of female circumcision would be considered bodily mutilation and forbidden under Jewish law” [14]. Yet, a Jewish minority group living in Ethiopia, the so-called Falashas or Beta Israel, practice ritual female genital surgery [15]. Buff believes that “as a persecuted and isolated Jewish enclave for thousands of years, the Falashas did not have access to either definitive Jewish texts or informed rabbinical sources” [14]. In fact, the Falashas practice an archaic form of Judaism, strictly adhering to the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. They do not speak or read Hebrew. Their bible is written in Ge’ez, which is the clerical language of the Ethiopian and Eritrean orthodox church, and they do not know the other important religious scriptures of Judaism, the Talmud and the Mishnah [16,17]. The Falashas consider themselves descendants of the tribe of “Dan”, one of the 10 “lost tribes of Israel”, and were acknowledged as such, and therefore as being officially Jewish, by the Israeli government in 1975 [17]. This entitled them to the right of settling in Israel. While until 1984 only few of them immigrated to Israel, the majority of Ethiopian Jews were taken to Israel in the course of two air bridge operations, one between November 1984 and January 1985, rescuing about 8200 Ethiopian Jews who had fled to Sudan from a famine in Ethiopia, and the second one in May 1991, rescuing 14,087 Ethiopian Jews from political constraints in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Abeba. After their immigration to Israel, the Ethiopian Jews were converted to orthodox rabbinic Judaism. Nowadays, only a minority is still living in Ethiopia [17].

In a study conducted by Grisaru et al. on 113 Ethiopian Jewish immigrant women in Israel, the authors found a variety of lesions in one third of the women, with 27% showing partial or total clitoridectomy. Although not all the women interviewed had undergone FGM, all of them stated that FGM was normative among Jews in Ethiopia, but they did not consider it related to religion. The reasons for FGM varied according to the province the women originated from, ranging from the intention to create adhesions that prevent premarital intercourse to esthetic reasons. The authors also found that the customs of FGM is readily given up by Ethiopian Jews right after their immigration to Israel, as “they see themselves a part of a Jewish society without FGM” [15].

Christian view on FGM

Literature dealing with the Christian view on FGM is very scarce, however, Christian authorities unanimously agree that FGM has no foundation in the religious texts of Christianity [18–22]. During the 2006 conference of The East Africa Program, the attending Christian (Coptic) leaders emphasized that “Christian doctrine is clear on the sanctity of the human body” [22]. Yet, as has already been mentioned before, FGM is practiced among Christian groups, e.g. in Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania and Kenya. Although FGM is not prescribed by religious law, many of those practicing it may consider it a religious obligation, as female sexual purity plays an important role, not only in Christianity, but in all monotheistic religions.

As described above, FGM cannot be justified by any of the three monotheistic religions. The reasons for FGM are various and are clearly a mixture of cultural, social and religious factors [1]. In societies, where FGM is practiced, the social pressure on the families is very high and the necessity to conform to what is considered right may be reason enough to continue the practice. But whatever reason there may be, the fact is that FGM represents a violation of human rights which has to be fought until it has been totally eliminated.

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Expert argues Vikings carried redhead gene to Scotland

http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/expert-argues-vikings-carried-redhead-gene-to-scotland-1-3200177

THE Viking warriors who invaded Scotland in the eighth century may have harboured a fiery secret beneath their horned helmets.

According to a leading academic the Norse invaders depicted in film and history books as rugged blonds were in fact ginger.

The contentious theory could explain the auburn enigma that has long baffled scientists – why do so many Scots have red hair?

Professor Donna Heddle, director of the University of the Highlands and Islands’ Centre for Nordic Studies, believes the answer lies in a genetic gift from our Viking ancestors. She argues that the Norse were much more likely to have been red-headed than blond and that they were responsible for transforming Scotland into the world’s ginger capital.

“The perception that the Norse were blond is nothing more than a prevalent myth,” she said. “Genetically speaking, the chances of them having blond hair weren’t that likely. The chances are that they would have had red hair. Interestingly, if you look at where red hair occurs in the world you can almost map it to Viking trading routes.”

While only about 0.6 per cent of the world’s population has red hair, around 13 per cent of Scots have rust-coloured locks, with an estimated further 40 per cent carrying the recessive redhead gene.

Famous flame-haired Scots include actors Ewan McGregor and Karen Gillan, singer Shirley Manson, Mary Queen of Scots, Scottish national football coach Gordon Strachan, and of course Willie, the cantankerous school janitor from The Simpsons.

“I’ve looked into the preponderance of the red-haired gene and my supposition is that it is a Norse gene, probably from Germanic and early Celtic roots,” said Heddle.

“The only other density of red hair which compares to Scotland and Ireland is in Scandinavia. It becomes a cultural marker of the Norse and of the Vikings.

“If you look at where the red haired patterning is in Ireland, in particular, it is very much around the areas where Vikings settled.”

Heddle believes a full scale study investigating the potential links between Nordic and Celtic hair colouring now needs to be carried out.

She said: “At the moment this is purely a theory, but there does appear to be some corroborating evidence.

“If you look at the dispersal patterns there would appear to be a clear connection between a dark red spot on Scotland and a dark red sport on the north of Scandinavia compared to the rest of Europe.

“Research has shown that 60 per cent of the DNA of modern males on the Orkney Islands, where there is a particularly high proportion of redheads, is Norwegian. That evidence backs up the idea of the clear genetic influence.”

The Orkney-based academic is also keen to dispel perceptions that Vikings were little more than murderous barbarians.

She said: “Rather than being some kind of band of cutthroat, lawless pirates, hepped up to the back teeth on magic mushrooms, they were, in fact, a very organised and orderly society.

“They did have what can only be described as a hawk-like foreign policy, but when they arrived at a place they ruled it with the utmost legality. They were settlers and traders who left their imprint on our legal system, boat building techniques, literature, languages and place names, not to mention our appearance. The Norse are woven right through the tapestry of Scottish history and it is time that was recognised.”

However, not everyone agrees. Dr Jim Wilson, an expert in genetic ancestry research, remains unconvinced by the idea that Norse raiders are at the root of Scotland’s abundance of red hair.

The senior lecturer at Edinburgh University said: “There are redheads in Scandinavia and there doubtless were redheaded Vikings. Redheadedness is a north and western European trait, but the pattern of redheads in the British Isles is more consistent with the ancient indigenous Celtic inhabitants who were here before the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. The Vikings maybe brought a few red-hair genetic variants over with them, but the majority of redheads were already here.”

Previously it has been argued that Scotland’s poor climate was responsible for the high frequency of the ginger mutation. Emily Pritchard, a PhD genetics student at Edinburgh University, made global headlines when she published a paper postulating that in areas where summer temperatures were cooler, and winter days were shorter, people with ginger hair were more likely to survive and evolve. She argued that redhead’s pale skin provided an evolutionary advantage as it allowed the body to produce large quantities of Vitamin D.

Last year deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman was forced to apologise to Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat cabinet minister and Inverness MP, after she branded him a “ginger rodent” in a conference speech.

In August the UK’s first ginger pride march took place in the centre of Edinburgh with the goal of celebrating red hair and combating prejudice.

http://thedockyards.com/red-hair/


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Canaan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

Canaan (/ˈkeɪnən/; Northwest Semitic: knaʿn; Phoenician: Biblical Hebrew/Masoretic: כְּנָעַן‎ Kənā‘an; Ḵənā‘an) was a Semitic-speaking region in the Ancient Near East during the late 2nd millennium BC. In the Bible it corresponds to the Levant, in particular to the areas of the Southern Levant that provide the main setting of the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, i.e., the area of Israel, Philistia, Phoenicia, and other nations.

The name Canaan occurs commonly in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, the references in Genesis 10 and Numbers 34 define the "Land of Canaan" as extending from Lebanon southward to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan River Valley.

The word Canaanites serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations—both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups—throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan.[1] Canaanite is by far the most frequently used ethnic term in the Bible.[2] In the Book of Joshua, Canaanites are included in a list of nations to exterminate,[3] and later described as a group which the Israelites had annihilated.[4]

Archaeological attestation of the name Canaan in Ancient Near Eastern sources relates almost exclusively to the period in which the region operated as a colony of the New Kingdom of Egypt (16th–11th centuries BC), with usage of the name almost disappearing following the Late Bronze Age collapse (c. 1206–1150 BC).[5] The references suggest that during this period the term was familiar to the region's neighbors on all sides, although scholars have disputed to what extent such references provide a coherent description of its location and boundaries, and regarding whether the inhabitants used the term to describe themselves.[6] The Amarna Letters and other cuneiform documents use Kinaḫḫu [Kinakh'khu], while other sources of the Egyptian New Kingdom mention numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na.[7]

The name "Canaanites" (כְּנָעַנִיְם‎ kənā‘anīm, כְּנָעַנִי‎ kənā‘anī) is attested, many centuries later, as the endonym of the people later known to the Ancient Greeks from c. 500 BC as Phoenicians,[4] and following the emigration of Canaanite-speakers to Carthage (founded in the 9th century BC), was also used as a self-designation by the Punics (chanani) of North Africa during Late Antiquity.

Canaan had significant geopolitical importance in the Late Bronze Age Amarna period (14th century BC) as the area where the spheres of interest of the Egyptian, Hittite, Mitanni and Assyrian Empires converged. Much of modern knowledge about Canaan stems from archaeological excavation in this area at sites such as Tel Hazor, Tel Megiddo, and Gezer.

Culture

Canaan included what today are Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, northwestern Jordan, and some western areas of Syria.[55] According to archaeologist Jonathan N. Tubb, "Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites and Phoenicians undoubtedly achieved their own cultural identities, and yet ethnically they were all Canaanites", "the same people who settled in farming villages in the region in the 8th millennium BC."[56]

There is uncertainty about whether the name Canaan refers to a specific Semitic-speaking ethnic group wherever they live, the homeland of this ethnic group, or a region under the control of this ethnic group, or perhaps any combination of the three.

Canaanite civilization was a response to long periods of stable climate interrupted by short periods of climate change. During these periods, Canaanites profited from their intermediary position between the ancient civilizations of the Middle East—Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia), the Hittites, and Minoan Crete—to become city states of merchant princes along the coast, with small kingdoms specializing in agricultural products in the interior. This polarity, between coastal towns and agrarian hinterland, was illustrated in Canaanite mythology by the struggle between the storm god, variously called Teshub (Hurrian) or Ba'al Hadad (Semitic Amorite/Aramean) and Ya'a, Yaw, Yahu or Yam, god of the sea and rivers. Early Canaanite civilization was characterized by small walled market towns, surrounded by peasant farmers growing a range of local horticultural products, along with commercial growing of olives, grapes for wine, and pistachios, surrounded by extensive grain cropping, predominantly wheat and barley. Harvest in early summer was a season when transhumance nomadism was practiced—shepherds staying with their flocks during the wet season and returning to graze them on the harvested stubble, closer to water supplies in the summer. Evidence of this cycle of agriculture is found in the Gezer calendar and in the biblical cycle of the year.

Periods of rapid climate change generally saw a collapse of this mixed Mediterranean farming system; commercial production was replaced with subsistence agricultural foodstuffs; and transhumance pastoralism became a year-round nomadic pastoral activity, whilst tribal groups wandered in a circular pattern north to the Euphrates, or south to the Egyptian delta with their flocks. Occasionally, tribal chieftains would emerge, raiding enemy settlements and rewarding loyal followers from the spoils or by tariffs levied on merchants. Should the cities band together and retaliate, a neighbouring state intervene or should the chieftain suffer a reversal of fortune, allies would fall away or intertribal feuding would return. It has been suggested that the Patriarchal tales of the Bible reflect such social forms.[57] During the periods of the collapse of Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia and the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, the Hyksos invasions and the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Assyria and Babylonia, and the Late Bronze Age collapse, trade through the Canaanite area would dwindle, as Egypt, Babylonia, and to a lesser degree Assyria, withdrew into their isolation. When the climates stabilized, trade would resume firstly along the coast in the area of the Philistine and Phoenician cities. As markets redeveloped, new trade routes that would avoid the heavy tariffs of the coast would develop from Kadesh Barnea, through Hebron, Lachish, Jerusalem, Bethel, Samaria, Shechem, Shiloh through Galilee to Jezreel, Hazor and Megiddo. Secondary Canaanite cities would develop in this region. Further economic development would see the creation of a third trade route from Eilath, Timna, Edom (Seir), Moab, Ammon and thence to the Aramean states of Damascus and Palmyra. Earlier states (for example the Philistines and Tyrians in the case of Judah and Samaria, for the second route, and Judah and Israel for the third route) tried generally unsuccessfully to control the interior trade.[58]

Eventually, the prosperity of this trade would attract more powerful regional neighbours, such as Ancient Egypt, Assyria, the Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks and Romans, who would control the Canaanites politically, levying tribute, taxes and tariffs. Often in such periods, thorough overgrazing would result in a climatic collapse and a repeat of the cycle (e.g., PPNB, Ghassulian, Uruk, and the Bronze Age cycles already mentioned). The fall of later Canaanite civilization occurred with the incorporation of the area into the Greco-Roman world (as Iudaea province), and after Byzantine times, into the Muslim Arab and proto-Muslim Umayyad Caliphate. Western Aramaic, one of the two lingua francas of Canaanite civilization, is still spoken in a number of small Syrian villages, whilst Phoenician Canaanite disappeared as a spoken language in about 100 AD. A separate Akkadian-infused Eastern Aramaic is still spoken by the existing Assyrians of Iraq, Iran, northeast Syria and southeast Turkey.

Tel Kabri contains the remains of a Canaanite city from the Middle Bronze Age (2000–1550 BC). The city, the most important of the cities in the Western Galilee during that period, had a palace at its center. Tel Kabri is the only Canaanite city that can be excavated in its entirety because after the city was abandoned, no other city was built over its remains. It is notable because the predominant extra-Canaanite cultural influence is Minoan; Minoan-style frescoes decorate the palace.[59]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Promised Land

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Land

The Promised Land (Hebrew: הארץ המובטחת‎‎, translit.: Ha'Aretz HaMuvtahat; Arabic: أرض الميعاد‎‎, translit.: Ard Al-Mi'ad; also known as "The Land of Milk and Honey") is the land which, according to the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), was promised and subsequently given by God to Abraham and his descendants, and in modern contexts an image and idea related both to the restored Homeland for the Jewish people and to salvation and liberation is more generally understood.

The promise was first made to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21), then confirmed to his son Isaac (Genesis 26:3), and then to Isaac's son Jacob (Genesis 28:13), Abraham's grandson. The promised land was described in terms of the territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river (Exodus 23:31). A smaller area of former Canaanite land and land east of the Jordan River was conquered and occupied by their descendants, the Israelites, after Moses led the Exodus out of Egypt (Numbers 34:1-12), and this occupation was interpreted as God's fulfilment of the promise (Deuteronomy 1:8). Moses anticipated that God might subsequently give the Israelites land reflecting the boundaries of God's original promise, if they were obedient to the covenant (Deuteronomy 19:8-9).

The concept of the Promised Land is the central tenet of Zionism, whose discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees through whom they inherit the right to re-establish their "national homeland". Palestinians also claim partial descent from the Israelites and Maccabees, as well as all the other peoples who have lived in the region.[1]

The imagery of the "Promised Land" was invoked in Negro spirituals as heaven or paradise and as an escape from slavery, often which can only be reached by death. The imagery and term have also been used in popular culture (see Promised Land (disambiguation)), sermons and in speeches, such as the "I've Been to the Mountaintop" (1968) speech by Martin Luther King Jr.:

    "I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

Divine promise

The promise that is the basis of the term is contained in several verses of Genesis in the Torah. In Genesis 12:1 it is said:

    The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you."

and in Genesis 12:7:

    The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring [or seed] I will give this land."

Commentators have noted several problems with this promise and related ones:

    It is to Abram's descendants that the land will (in the future tense) be given, not to Abram directly nor there and then. However, in Genesis 15:7 it is said: He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it." However, how this verse relates to the promises is a matter of controversy.
    There is nothing in the promise to indicate God intended it be applied to Abraham’s physical descendants unconditionally, exclusively (to nobody but these descendants), exhaustively (to all of them) or in perpetuity.[2]
    Jewish commentators drawing on Rashi's comments to the first verse in the Bible, assert that no human collective ever has any a priori claim to any piece of land on the planet, and that only God decides which group inhabits which land in any point in time. This interpretation has no contradictions since the idea that the Jewish people have a claim to ownership rights on the physical land is based on the idea of God deciding to give the land to the Jewish people and commanding them to occupy it as referred to in Biblical texts previously mentioned.

In Genesis 15:18-21 the boundary of the promised land is clarified in terms of the territory of various ancient peoples, as follows:

    On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaite, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

The verse is said to describe what are known as "borders of the Land" (Gevulot Ha-aretz).[3] In Jewish tradition, these borders define the maximum extent of the land promised to the descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob.[4]

The promise was confirmed to Jacob at Genesis 28:13, though the borders are still vague and is in terms of "the land on which you are lying". Other geographical borders are given in Exodus 23:31 which describes borders as marked by the Red Sea, the "Sea of the Philistines" i.e. the Mediterranean, and the "River," (the Euphrates).

The promise is fulfilled at the end of the Exodus from Egypt. Deuteronomy 1:8 says:

    See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land that the LORD swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.

It took a long time before the Israelites could subdue the Canaanite inhabitants of the land. The furthest extent of the Land of Israel was achieved during the time of the united Kingdom of Israel under David.[5][6] The actual land controlled by the Israelites has fluctuated considerably over time, and at times the land has been under the control of various empires. However, under Jewish tradition, even when it is not in Jewish occupation, the land has not lost its status as the Promised Land.

Descendants of Abraham

Traditional Jewish interpretation, and that of most Christian commentators, define Abraham's descendants as Abraham's seed only through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, to the exclusion of Ishmael and Esau.[4][7][8][9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This may however reflect an eisegesis or reconstruction of primary verses based on the later biblical emphasis of Jacob's descendants. The promises given to Abraham happened prior to the birth of Isaac and were given to all his offspring signified through the rite of circumcision. Johann Friedrich Karl Keil is less clear, as he states that the covenant is through Isaac, but notes that Ishmael's descendants have held much of that land through time.[17]

Mainstream Jewish tradition regards the promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as having been given to all Jews, including proselytes and in turn their descendants,[18] with the traditional view being that a convert becomes a child of Abraham, as in the term "ben Avraham".[citation needed]

Christian interpretation

In the New Testament, the descent and promise is reinterpreted along religious lines.[19] In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul the Apostle draws attention to the formulation of the promise, avoiding the term "seeds" in plural (meaning many people), choosing instead "seed," meaning one person, who, he understands to be Jesus (and those united with him). For example, in Galatians 3:16 he notes:

    "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ."

In Galatians 3:28-29 Paul goes further, noting that the expansion of the promise from singular to the plural is not based on genetic/physical association, but a spiritual/religious one:

    "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."[2]

In Romans 4:13 it is written:

    "It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."

Genesis 17:8


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Great Britain Olympic football team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_Olympic_football_team

The Great Britain Olympic football team is the men's football team that represents the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) at the Summer Olympic Games (where it competes as Great Britain, currently branded Team GB). The team is organised by the English Football Association (FA) as the footballing representative of the British Olympic Association. The team only competes in the Olympic Games. In other international football tournaments, the Home Nations of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are represented by their own national teams, a situation which pre-dated the establishment of a GB team.

The team first competed at the FA organised tournament for the 1908 Olympics held in London, which was the first games that featured representative teams using players selected nationally (prior games in 1900 and 1904 used club teams). This team and the two that followed in 1912 and 1920 featured only English amateur players, and is seen by some as merely an extension of the English amateur team, set up in 1906 in response to the rise of the professional game.[3] In this period the team won the gold medal at the 1908 and 1912 tournaments, although exited at Round 1 in 1920. A dispute between the FA and FIFA over the inclusion of professionals saw the FA withdraw from Olympic football in 1924 and 1928, and saw no football at the Olympics at all in 1932.[1]

After the creation of the FIFA World Cup, it was agreed that Olympic football would become exclusively amateur,[4] leading to the team competing again in the 1936 Games, this time incorporating players from other Home Nations. After the break caused by World War II, the team then competed in every games from 1948 until 1972, albeit failing to qualify for the main tournament after 1960.[1] In this period the team's best performance was 4th place in 1948 at the second Games hosted in London, under manager Matt Busby.[1]

After the FA abolished the distinction between amateur and professional players in 1974, it stopped entering a team.[3] By the 1992 Games teams could use professionals, but were restricted to players under 23 years old, with only three over-age players allowed per squad.[4] Despite this change, Great Britain did not enter a football team again until London won the right to host the 2012 Games.[5][6] The FA organised the team, with Stuart Pearce appointed manager.[7] A Great Britain women's Olympic football team also competed at the 2012 Games.

Origins

The FA was formed in London 1863, when thirteen teams met to draw up a shared rule list for football, in order to facilitate matches between clubs.[8] The question of the geographical remit of this organisation does not appear to have been asked, with the FA being formed before the rise of international football. The first football matches between national teams were arranged by the FA, who invited English and Scottish players to form representative teams.[8] The Scottish teams were made up almost entirely of Scottish residents in England and in order to encourage more Scottish based players to compete, an organisation in Scotland was sought to form the Scottish team.[8] For the 1872 game between Scotland and England in Glasgow, Queen's Park Football Club took on this role, and this game is now recognised as the first international match.[9] Within a year, the Scottish Football Association (SFA) was founded to facilitate these matches, and to organise football in Scotland more broadly. The third national football association, the Football Association of Wales was founded in 1876 and a fourth, the Irish Football Association, (IFA), was founded in 1880.

The practice of playing internationals between the four countries of the United Kingdom (also known as the home nations) was thus developed before football associations were developed elsewhere in the world and, no 'United Kingdom football association' was ever formed.[1] Outside of the UK, the first national associations were formed in 1889 (in Denmark and the Netherlands),[1] and these also began to pick their own national teams. When football was included at the 1900 Olympic Games, however, many nations were still struggling to raise a team,[1] and so club teams entered instead. Upton Park represented the UK, winning the gold medal.[3]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
New EU map makes Kent part of same 'nation' as France

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527886/New-EU-map-makes-Kent-part-of-same-nation-as-France.html

By Jasper Copping and Melissa Kite

12:01AM BST 03 Sep 2006

They have tried to redraw the map of Europe before. Now a German-led "conspiracy of cartographers" stands accused of trying to use a new European Union directive to give Brussels the power to change national boundaries.

The Conservative Party fears that the directive, currently passing through the European Parliament, could be the first step of a Berlin-inspired masterplan to create a United States of Europe divided, not into nation states, but instead a series of "trans-national" regions, the templates for which have already been drawn up.

Under the changes, those living in Kent and East Sussex would find themselves not inhabitants of Britain, but the TransManche region, where their fellow citizens would not be their English-speaking neighbours but the French-speaking population of northern France.

North of the TransManche would be the North Sea region, taking in all of eastern England and vast areas of Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries.

Western Britain and Ireland would become the Atlantic region, a huge zone that also takes in parts of France, Spain and Portugal.

Perhaps most bizarre would be the Northern Periphery region, lumping together the population of north-west Scotland with their very distant cousins in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland and Iceland.

Draft outlines of these regions have already been drawn up as part of a long-running EU project called Interreg, which has created the areas to foster cross-border- co-operation on issues such as tourism, trade, health and the environment.

The EU says that the directive on "spatial information", which requires all member states to bring their maps and data into line with the European Commission's specifications, is to help to harmonise data across Europe and allow the smoother implementation of social, environmental and transport policies.

However, the Conservative Party fears that the Germans, who are among the most vocal supporters of transnationality, will use it as a tool to dismantle nation states by strengthening and enhancing the regional templates when they take over the EU presidency next year. In June, Wolfgang Tiefensee, a German minister, said: "There is the great hope underlying the goal of a United Europe that we can permanently overcome old borders."

Eric Pickles, the shadow minister for local government and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, said: "Under the Labour Government, Britain has already been sub-divided into regions as part of John Prescott's empire building, yet worse could be to come.

"A conspiracy of cartographers in Brussels is seeking to break up Britain into regions that cross national boundaries. I fear that there is an agenda to undermine national identities and impose a United States of Europe by stealth. Conservatives will fight these attempts to balkanise Britain."

Under the directive, Brussels will also gain access to "spies in the sky" – data provided by satellite and airborne photography and sensors – in addition to property information about people's homes. Critics believe this is a precursor to Brussels creating a new computer database, with which to levy an EU-wide property tax.

Andrew Duff, the Liberal Democrat MEP for the East of England, described the Conservative reaction to the directive and the creation of transnational regions as "childish baloney. This directive is trying to achieve a norm of statistics across Europe to develop social policy, transport infrastructure and so on," he said. "It is just a tool for policy-making."


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Leicester Population 2017

http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/leicester-population/

Leicester is not just one of the largest cities in England, it is also one of the oldest. The city dates to the first century B.C. and now owes its popularity to several factors. Leicester is located on two main rail lines running through the heart of the country and has had some recent fame from winning the 2016 Premier League – the first English winner in quite a few decades. The population of Leicester is certainly booming and this very old city looks likely to grow for the foreseeable future.

Demographics


England carries out a new census every 10 years. The last census was in 2011 with the previous in 2001. The 2011 census showed that the current population had reached 329,939. That was an 11.8% increase from the 2001 census. The population density of Leicester shows that the city is currently quite popular as there are 4,494 people per kilometer in the city. These numbers do not include the outlying suburban areas of Leicester where the overall population is substantially higher at 509,000.

Religion


The religious aspects of Leicester are not as diverse as other cities throughout the world, but this is changing as more and more people convert to other religions and the population continues to grow. Currently, Christianity dominates at 32.4% of the overall population. The second religion that is popular in Leicester is Islam, with Muslims making up 18.6% of the population. Hindus are close to Muslims at 15.2% and growing with each passing year. Other religions in Leicester representing smaller proportions of the population are Sikhs at 4.4%, Buddhism at .4% and Jews at .1% of the overall population. Other religions make up .6% of the population and, at 22.8%, a significant number of the population claims to have no religious affiliation.

Education

Leicester has not become a popular city simply because of its proximity to the rail lines. Its popularity also has a lot to do with the educational opportunities in the city. The statistics show that only 8% of the overall population of Leicester lacks at least a high school diploma. Those that have had some high school education or graduated are at 14.3%. The largest percentage are individuals that have had some college education in apprenticeships and trade schools at 31.5%. Associates degrees make up 12.3% of the population, while bachelor degrees make up 23.9%. Those working towards advanced degrees do find themselves in a minority position as only 10% of the population pursues graduate degrees of some form.

Crime Rate

In some cities, crime rates are not something that is commonly talked about, but Leicester is quite a different story. The crime rates for all the standard crimes in the city are far below the national average. The only exception to that rule is the number of burglaries in Leicester. They are 117.17 points above the national average. That is certainly not bad for a city of this size.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Hindu–Islamic relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%80%93Islamic_relations

Hinduism is a diversity-filled socio-religious way of life of the Hindu people of the Indian subcontinent, their diaspora, and some other regions which had Hindu influence in the ancient and medieval times. In Hinduism God can be worshiped in the name one believes or in the form one believes and allows idol worship, hence Hinduism's concept of God does not contradict the concept of Allah, the Islamic God. Islam is a monotheistic religion in which the supreme deity is Allah (Arabic: الله‎‎ "the God": see God in Islam), the last Islamic prophet being Muhammad, whom Muslims believe delivered the Islamic scripture, the Qur'an. Hinduism mostly shares common terms with the dhārmic religions, including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Islam shares common terms with the Abrahamic religions–those religions claiming descent from Abraham–being, from oldest to youngest, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i Faith.

The Qur'an and the Hadiths are the primary Islamic scriptures. The scriptures of Hinduism are the Shrutis (the four Vedas, which comprise the original Vedic Hymns, or Samhitas, and three tiers of commentaries upon the Samhitas, namely the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads[1]); these are considered authentic, authoritative divine revelation. Furthermore, Hinduism is also based on the Smritis, including the Rāmāyana, the Bhagavad Gītā, and the Purānas, which are also considered to be equally sacred.

Hinduism and Islam share some ritual practices such as fasting and pilgrimage, but differ in their views on apostasy, blasphemy, circumcision, consanguineous marriages, idol making, henotheism, social stratification, vegetarianism, and Ahimsa as a virtue. Their historical interaction since the 7th century has witnessed periods of cooperation and syncretism, as well as periods of religious violence.

Theology and Concept of God

Islam is a system of thought that believes in absolute monotheism, called Tawḥīd.[2] Muslims are required to affirm daily, as one of the five pillars of Islam, in Shahada, that is "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."[3][4]

Hinduism is a system of thought that believes in varied traditions. In the Upanishads, one popular interpretation is the Advaita Vedanta tradition. It is absolute monism. A person finds the truth when realizing his/her true nature or the pure soul or self (atman). When the person is devoid of ignorance the person realizes that their inner self (atman) is the Brahman (the ultimate reality). Till the person realizes this truth, the person is usually of ignorance and therefore thinks everything around them is real and indulges in it, when it's actually not and is an illusion (maya). The Brahman which is absolute and pure and the atman which is absolute and pure also are the same in this school of thought. When the person singularly focus on 'I' and indulges in self-enquiry, study of texts, ethical perfection and jnana and the self, they realize the Brahman and don't depend on the material.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Dan Glazebrook's latest op ed is an excellent analysis of the ongoing war against humanity.

West eyes recolonization of Africa by endless war; removing Gaddafi was just first step


https://www.rt.com/op-edge/407332-gaddafi-west-sirte-recolonization/

A man stands next to destroyed and damaged buildings in Sabri, a central Benghazi district, Libya © Esam Omran Al-Fetori / Reuters
Exactly six years ago, on October 20th, 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was murdered, joining a long list of African revolutionaries martyred by the West for daring to dream of continental independence.

Earlier that day, Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte had been occupied by Western-backed militias, following a month-long battle during which NATO and its ‘rebel’ allies pounded the city’s hospitals and homes with artillery, cut off its water and electricity, and publicly proclaimed their desire to ‘starve [the city] into submission’. The last defenders of the city, including Gaddafi, fled Sirte that morning, but their convoy was tracked and strafed by NATO jets, killing 95 people. Gaddafi escaped the wreckage but was captured shortly afterward. I will spare you the gruesome details, which the Western media gloatingly broadcast across the world as a triumphant snuff movie, suffice to say that he was tortured and eventually shot dead.

We now know, if testimony from NATO’s key Libyan ally Mahmoud Jibril is to be believed, it was a foreign agent, likely French, who delivered the fatal bullet. His death was the culmination of not only seven months of NATO aggression, but of a campaign against Gaddafi and his movement, the West had been waging for over three decades.

Yet it was also the opening salvo in a new war - a war for the militarily recolonization of Africa.

The year 2009, two years before Gaddafi’s murder, was a pivotal one for US-African relations. First, because China overtook the US as the continent’s largest trading partner; and second because Gaddafi was elected president of the African Union.

The significance of both for the decline of US influence on the continent could not be clearer. While Gaddafi was spearheading attempts to unite Africa politically, committing serious amounts of Libyan oil wealth to make this dream a reality, China was quietly smashing the West’s monopoly over export markets and investment finance. Africa no longer had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for loans, agreeing to whatever self-defeating terms were on offer, but could turn to China - or indeed Libya - for investment. And if the US threatened to cut them off from their markets, China would happily buy up whatever was on offer. Western economic domination of Africa was under threat as never before.

The response from the West, of course, was a military one. Economic dependence on the West - rapidly being shattered by Libya and China - would be replaced by a new military dependence. If African countries would no longer come begging for Western loans, export markets, and investment finance, they would have to be put in a position where they would come begging for Western military aid.

To this end, AFRICOM - the US army’s new ‘African command’ - had been launched the previous year, but humiliatingly for George W. Bush, not a single African country would agree to host its HQ; instead, it was forced to open shop in Stuttgart, Germany. Gaddafi had led African opposition to AFRICOM, as exasperated US diplomatic memos later revealed by WikiLeaks made clear. And US pleas to African leaders to embrace AFRICOM in the ‘fight against terrorism’ fell on deaf ears.

After all, as Mutassim Gaddafi, head of Libyan security, had explained to Hillary Clinton in 2009, North Africa already had an effective security system in place, through the African Union’s ‘standby forces,' on the one hand, and CEN-SAD on the other. CEN-SAD was a regional security organization of Sahel and Saharan states, with a well-functioning security system, with Libya as the lynchpin. The sophisticated Libyan-led counter-terror structure meant there was simply no need for a US military presence. The job of Western planners, then, was to create such a need.

NATO’s destruction of Libya simultaneously achieved three strategic goals for the West’s plans for military expansion in Africa. Most obviously, it removed the biggest obstacle and opponent of such expansion, Gaddafi himself. With Gaddafi gone, and with a quiescent pro-NATO puppet government in charge of Libya, there was no longer any chance that Libya would act as a powerful force against Western militarism. Quite the contrary - Libya’s new government was utterly dependent on such militarism and knew it.
Secondly, NATO’s aggression served to bring about a total collapse of the delicate but effective North African security system, which had been underpinned by Libya. And finally, NATO’s annihilation of the Libyan state effectively turned the country over to the region’s death squads and terror groups. These groups were then able to loot Libya’s military arsenals and set up training camps at their leisure, using these to expand operations right across the region.

It is no coincidence that almost all of the recent terror attacks in North Africa - not to mention Manchester - have been either prepared in Libya or perpetrated by fighters trained in Libya. Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, ISIS, Mali’s Ansar Dine, and literally dozens of others, have all greatly benefited from the destruction of Libya.

By ensuring the spread of terror groups across the region, the Western powers had magically created a demand for their military assistance which hitherto did not exist. They had literally created a protection racket for Africa.

In an excellent piece of research published last year, Nick Turse wrote how the increase in AFRICOM operations across the continent has correlated precisely with the rise in terror threats. Its growth, he said, has been accompanied by “increasing numbers of lethal terror attacks across the continent including those in Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Tunisia.

In fact, data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland shows that attacks have spiked over the last decade, roughly coinciding with AFRICOM’s establishment. In 2007, just before it became an independent command, there were fewer than 400 such incidents annually in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, the number reached nearly 2,000. By AFRICOM’s own official standards, of course, this is a demonstration of a massive failure. Viewed from the perspective of the protection racket, however, it is a resounding success, with US military power smoothly reproducing the conditions for its own expansion.

This is the Africa policy Trump has now inherited. But because this policy has rarely been understood as the protection racket it really is, many commentators have, as with so many of Trump’s policies, mistakenly believed he is somehow ‘ignoring’ or ‘reversing’ the approach of his predecessors. In fact, far from abandoning this approach, Trump is escalating it with relish.

What the Trump administration is doing, as it is doing in pretty much every policy area, is stripping the previous policy of its ‘soft power’ niceties to reveal and extend the iron fist which has in fact been in the driving seat all along. Trump, with his open disdain for Africa, has effectively ended US development aid for Africa - slashing overall African aid levels by one third, and transferring responsibility for much of the rest from the Agency for International Development to the Pentagon - while openly tying aid to the advancement of “US national security objectives.”

    'US has enough roles': #Trump not interested in #Libya nation-building

    Read more: https://t.co/Cf0ndYHdoPpic.twitter.com/OfJDndQaL8
    — RT America (@RT_America) April 20, 2017

In other words, the US has made a strategic decision to drop the carrot in favor of the stick. Given the overwhelming superiority of Chinese development assistance, this is unsurprising. The US has decided to stop trying to compete in this area, and instead to ruthlessly and unambiguously pursue the military approach which the Bush and Obama administrations had already mapped out.

To this end, Trump has stepped up drone attacks, removing the (limited) restrictions that had been in place during the Obama era. The result has been a ramping up of civilian casualties, and consequently of the resentment and hatred which fuels militant recruitment. It is unlikely to be a coincidence, for example, that the al Shabaab truck bombing that killed over 300 people in Mogadishu last weekend was carried out by a man from a town in which had suffered a major drone attack on civilians, including women and children, in August.

Indeed, a detailed study by the United Nations recently concluded that in “a majority of cases, state action appears to be the primary factor finally pushing individuals into violent extremism in Africa.” Of more than 500 former members of militant organizations interviewed for the report, 71 percent pointed to “government action,” including “killing of a family member or friend” or “arrest of a family member or friend” as the incident that prompted them to join a group. And so the cycle continues: drone attacks breed recruitment, which produces further terror attacks, which leaves the states involved more dependent on US military support. Thus does the West create the demand for its own ‘products.'

It does so in another way as well. Alexander Cockburn, in his book ‘Kill Chain,' explains how the policy of ‘targeted killings’ - another Obama policy ramped up under Trump - also increases the militancy of insurgent groups. Cockburn, reporting on a discussion with US soldiers about the efficacy of targeted killings, wrote that: “When the topic of conversation came round to ways of defeating the [roadside] bombs, everyone was in agreement. They would have charts up on the wall showing the insurgent cells they were facing, often with the names and pictures of the guys running them," Rivolo remembers. "When we asked about going after the high-value individuals and what effect it was having, they’d say, ‘Oh yeah, we killed that guy last month, and we’re getting more IEDs than ever.’ They all said the same thing, point blank: ‘Once you knock them off, a day later you have a new guy who’s smarter, younger, more aggressive and is out for revenge.”’

Alex de Waal has written how this is certainly true in Somalia, where, he says, “each dead leader is followed by a more radical deputy. After a failed attempt in January 2007, the US killed Al Shabaab’s commander, Aden Hashi Farah Ayro, in a May 2008 air strike. Ayro’s successor, Ahmed Abdi Godane (alias Mukhtar Abu Zubair), was worse, affiliating the organization with Al-Qaeda. The US succeeded in assassinating Godane in September 2014. In turn, Godane was succeeded by an even more determined extremist, Ahmad Omar (Abu Ubaidah). It was presumably Omar who ordered the recent attack in Mogadishu, the worst in the country’s recent history. If targeted killing remains a central strategy of the War on Terror”, De Waal wrote, “it is set to be an endless war.”

But endless war is the whole point. For not only does it force African countries, finally freeing themselves from dependence on the IMF, into dependence on AFRICOM; it also undermines China’s blossoming relationship with Africa.

Chinese trade and investment in Africa continues to grow apace. According to the China-Africa Research Initiative at John Hopkins University, Chinese FDI stocks in Africa had risen from just two percent of the value of US stocks in 2003 to 55 percent in 2015, when they totaled $35 billion. This proportion is likely to rapidly increase, given that “Between 2009 and 2012, China’s direct investment in Africa grew at an annual rate of 20.5 percent, while levels of US FDI flows to Africa declined by $8 billion in the wake of the global financial crisis”. Chinese-African trade, meanwhile, topped $200 billion in 2015.

China’s signature ‘One Belt One Road’ policy - to which President Xi Jinping has pledged $124 billion to create global trade routes designed to facilitate $2 trillion worth of annual trade - will also help to improve African links with China. Trump’s policy toward the project was summarised by Steve Bannon, his ideological mentor, and former chief strategist in just eight words: “Let’s go screw up One Belt One Road.” The West’s deeply destabilizing Africa policy - of simultaneously creating the conditions for armed groups to thrive while offering protection against them - goes some way toward realizing this ambitious goal. Removing Gaddafi was just the first step.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Catherine Shakdam's op ed creates the opportunity for definable dialogue:

Dying in Myanmar – When genocide becomes normative rather than aberrational

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/407094-dying-myanmar-genocide-violence/

A Rohingya refugee woman who crossed the border from Myanmar a day before, carries her daughter and searches for help, in Palang Khali, Bangladesh October 17, 2017. © Jorge Silva / Reuters
It’s official. Myanmar, according to the UN in its latest report, has given in to wanton murder and systematic oppression to cleanse its streets of its designated undesirables: Rohingya Muslims. However, violence is but the tip of that iceberg.

“Myanmar security forces have driven out half a million Muslim Rohingya from northern Rakhine state, torching their homes, crops, and villages to prevent them from returning,” the UN human rights office said on October 11, warning that the findings confirmed atrocious human rights violations, including, but not limited to: rape, murder, and torture of children.

There is something utterly perverse in the targeting of children. It is not so much that their vulnerability commands we offer them protection, but that their very existence represents the future of a people - in this particular case Rohingya Muslims. There is something to be said of the systematic targeting of children when ethnic cleansing becomes a state’s primary political narrative.

I would say that Myanmar has long confirmed what many rights activists and experts had decried when it turned repression into a general exercise of ethnic cleansing with a strong sectarian undertone. For all the guilt Aung San Suu Kyi (the leader of the National League for Democracy and the first and incumbent State Counselor, a position akin to a prime minister) may presently carry upon her shoulders, Myanmar’s brush with genocide began decades ago when its seat of power choose to anchor its national identity in exclusionism.

Rohingya Muslims’ plight crystallized in 1982 when Myanmar introduced a series of law and regulations demanding that all wannabe Burmese proved ancestry as far back as 1823, thus automatically outlawing entire segments of society.

While Rohingya Muslims’ suffering may only have reached our screen, their reality has been one the United Nations has decried as profoundly troublesome by the nature of the persecution they have faced.

“The Rohingyas are one of the most persecuted groups in the world,”stated the UN earlier this September.

"A textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” Zeid Ra‘ad al-Hussein asserted at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Whichever way one chooses to look at Myanmar, it is somewhat evident that oppression and more pertinently mass-murder has been run from the highest office in the land as part of an agenda which roots are anchored in Myanmar’s own sense of national sovereignty. Again, for all the guilt Aung San Suu Kyi should ultimately answer to, our criticism needs to carry further if truly we are to offer justice to Myanmar’s victims.

I would argue that Myanmar’s genocidal tendencies are a reflection of a malady, or rather an agenda that seeks to rationalize ethnic and/or sectarian-based cleansing as a normative weapon of war - no longer the aberration to be frowned upon, genocide could then be reinvented as an affirmation of a country’s national identity. We would do well to remember that only a few decades ago certain European capitals entertained that very idea … fascism, as it were, remains a powerful plague elites love to flirt with to assert their hold over the political narrative.

If one looks beyond Myanmar to recognize emerging patterns, then connecting those proverbial dots becomes child’s play indeed. In that terrible chess game, Myanmar is but one pawn.

I will urge readers here not to get bogged down by numbers or even geography, but instead focus on intent. From Bahrain to Yemen, Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan, specific ethnic and religious groups have suffered either at the hands of governments or armed militants backed by governments. I am not interested in naming those aforementioned governments. I would much rather concentrate on unveiling those dynamics we too often blank out.

    ‘Humanitarian nightmare’: Over 500k #Rohingya refugees flee Myanmar violence https://t.co/ZHPqpV4FeDpic.twitter.com/yZIcTgHVQa
    — RT (@RT_com) September 30, 2017

Murder, organized socio-political oppression, forced migration, disenfranchisement based on ethnicity or faith, torture, rape, starvation … those have been the weapons of an elite against designated targets. Which targets have been systematically dehumanized and their suffering watered-down for the sake of geopolitical pragmatism.

One may recall how in 2016 Britain was accused of “waging a behind-the-scenes PR offensive aimed at neutering United Nations criticism of Bahrain for its human rights record, including the alleged use of torture by its security forces.”

One may also recall the glee with which the United States provided Saudi Arabia with weapons in the face of Riyadh’s implacable war with neighboring Yemen, or again how Henry Kissinger argued the safeguard of ISIS as a means to thwart Iran’s traction within the Greater Middle East.

Of course, numbers and intensity have varied! Of course one cannot compare Myanmar’s losses, in August the European Rohingya Council reported that an estimated 3,000 Rohingya Muslims had been massacred within three days, and that of Bahrain for example. And yet the nature of the agenda behind such violence is one and the same.

I will posit however that one life is worth that of humanity in general, and that one loss equates to that of our humanity.

In a report for the Daily Telegraph Nicola Smith covered a rather worrying, and yet telling development in the systematic targeting of the Rohingyas: organized starvation.

    .@antonioguterres has described the #Rohingya crisis as “the world’s fastest developing refugee emergency.” https://t.co/LIHCbDps37pic.twitter.com/GWHCrLTcIp
    — IOM (@UNmigration) September 29, 2017

She writes: “The Burmese army is now using starvation as a new cruel tactic to drive the remaining communities of the Muslim Rohingya minority out of Burma.”

And: “A fresh surge of refugees driven by fears of starvation and violence fled to Bangladesh on Monday. But many others have been stranded on Burma’s Maungdaw beach, without food or shelter and unable to pay traffickers to take them across the River Naf to safety.”

How is Myanmar’s modus operandi against its own designated enemy any different from Saudi Arabia’s decision to man a humanitarian blockade against Yemen in its desire to break people’s will and die out the opposition, especially if we consider the narrative behind such actions is sectarian-based?

It is because we have failed to uphold international norms by arguing exceptionalism that the abhorrent has become normative and the unspeakable the new normal.

That I believe is the real tragedy lurking behind Myanmar’s massacre of Rohingya Muslims.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth:

“Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far.

Here the man thinks that everyone will be impressed that the American military has never been stronger.

And that those who, for some unimaginable reason, are not impressed with that will at least be impressed that military equipment is being added EACH DAY. Ah yes, it’s long been a sore point with most Americans that new military equipment was being added only once a week.

And if that isn’t impressive enough, then surely the fact that the equipment is NEW will win people over. Indeed, the newness is important enough to mention twice. After all, no one likes USED military equipment.

And if newness doesn’t win everyone’s heart, then BEAUTIFUL will definitely do it. Who likes UGLY military equipment? Even the people we slaughter all over the world insist upon good-looking guns and bombs.

And the best in the world. Of course. That’s what makes us all proud to be Americans. And what makes the rest of humanity just aching with jealousy.

And in case you don’t fully appreciate that, notice that he adds that it’s the best ANYWHERE in the world.

And in case you still don’t fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! Makes me choke up.

Lucky for the man … his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment.

He’s twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/capturing-the-wisdom-and-beauty-of-donald-j-trump-the-american-military-has-never-been-stronger/5614492
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
History of Anglo-Saxon England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England

Anglo-Saxon England was early medieval England, existing from the 5th to the 11th century from the end of Roman Britain until the Norman conquest in 1066. It consisted of various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until 927 when it was united as the Kingdom of England by King Æthelstan (r. 927–939). It became part of the North Sea Empire of Cnut the Great, a personal union between England, Denmark and Norway in the 11th century.

The Anglo-Saxons were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural descendants. Anglo-Saxon history thus begins during the period of Sub-Roman Britain following the end of Roman control, and traces the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 5th and 6th centuries (conventionally identified as seven main kingdoms: Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Wessex), their Christianisation during the 7th century, the threat of Viking invasions and Danish settlers, the gradual unification of England under Wessex hegemony during the 9th and 10th centuries, and ending with the Norman conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066.

Anglo-Saxon identity survived beyond the Norman conquest,[1] came to be known as Englishry under Norman rule and ultimately developed into the modern English people.

Harold Godwinson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 – 14 October 1066), often called Harold II, was the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. Harold reigned from 6 January 1066[1] until his death at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October, fighting the Norman invaders led by William the Conqueror during the Norman conquest of England. His death marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule over England.

Harold was a powerful earl and member of a prominent Anglo-Saxon family with ties to Cnut the Great. Upon the death of Edward the Confessor in January 1066, the Witenagemot convened and chose Harold to succeed; he was crowned in Westminster Abbey. In late September, he successfully repelled an invasion by rival claimant Harald Hardrada of Norway before marching his army back south to meet William the Conqueror at Hastings some two weeks later.

Battle of Hastings

On 12 September 1066 William's fleet sailed from Normandy.[e] Several ships sank in storms, which forced the fleet to take shelter at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and to wait for the wind to change. On 27 September the Norman fleet finally set sail for England, arriving, it is believed,[by whom?] the following day at Pevensey on the coast of East Sussex. Harold's army marched 241 miles (386 kilometres) to intercept William, who had landed perhaps 7,000 men in Sussex, southern England. Harold established his army in hastily built earthworks near Hastings. The two armies clashed at the Battle of Hastings, at Senlac Hill (near the present town of Battle) close by Hastings on 14 October, where after nine hours of hard fighting, Harold was killed and his forces defeated. His brothers Gyrth and Leofwine were also killed in the battle, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Too tired to fight? Harold Godwinson’s Saxon army on the march in 1066

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/mwblog/too-tired-to-fight-harold-godwinsons-saxon-army-on-the-march-in-1066/

The Battle of Hastings was arguably the most important action ever fought on British soil. There, on 14 October 1066, William “the Bastard”, Duke of Normandy, won a kingdom and changed the face of Britain forever.

Many historians postulate that the Saxon army which encountered the Normans at Hastings was already greatly depleted by a forced march from the earlier Battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on 25 September 1066. Certainly King Harold’s Saxon army was having a busy autumn. Near the end of September they had marched the 200 miles (320 km) from London to Yorkshire to repel the invading forces of the Viking ruler Harald Hardrada and his ally, the English king’s brother-turned traitor-Tostig. Then, at the end of the month, the Saxon King received the unpleasant tidings that Duke William had landed on the south coast of Britain. Turning his army about, Harold had no alternative but to march all the way back south in order to meet the new, but not unexpected, Norman threat. By contemporary Western standards this sounds like a tall order, and it is frequently argued that only the elite mounted Saxon housecarls would have been able to make the journey in time.

The question remains as to whether the arduous trek from Yorkshire materially reduced the numerical strength and combat effectiveness of Harold’s army as it raced 270 miles (432 km) for the Sussex coast to confront the Norman invaders. It did not. Why? Because the Saxon army which fought the Normans at Hastings was not the same bloodied Saxon host which triumphed at Stamford Bridge.

King Harold’s army marches north

The lightning campaign Harold conducted in the north of England against the Norsemen of Harald Hardrada and Tostig was masterful in that it involved speed, surprise and overcoming very difficult terrain. Northern Britain in the mid-eleventh century was divided culturally and politically from the rest of the nation, and was generally left to its own devices. Hard to reach – only a few roads traversed the Humber Estuary and the bogs and swamps of Yorkshire and Cheshire connecting the north and south – the north was an isolated and barren region. The 200 mile (320 km) journey from London to York usually took two weeks, or more depending if the roads were passable.

The fastest way to travel from the south to the north of England was by ship along the country’s east coast. Unfortunately for Harold, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a few days before he heard of the Viking incursion in the north, he had disbanded his army which he had assembled some months before in anticipation of an appearance by the hostile William Duke of Normandy. The army had to be broken up, since the customary 60 day enlistment period for most of his soldiers had come to an end. It was also becoming more and more difficult to keep the army and navy intact due to the problem of supplying them. On 8 September, Harold got wind of Hardrada’s northern incursion. Prior to that alarming news the Saxon fleet had been sent to London, but, as reported by theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, it had lost many vessels as it made its way to the city around the south coast. The damage to his fleet may have been the prime reason the king did not sail for the north instead of making the arduous overland journey on foot. Given favorable wind and tides a sea voyage would have taken about three days. Thus, Harold could have avoided much of the stress and strain on the troops making the move north, as well as the burdensome supply requirements (i.e. passable roads, wheeled transport and draught animals) needed to support such a march to the north.

Regardless, the Saxons, after leaving London in the middle of September, arrived in Yorkshire, near Tadcaster, on 24 September. They had covered 200 grueling miles in a little over a week, making an impressive 22 to 25 miles (35-40 km) a day. The army’s rapid progress surprised the unsuspecting Norsemen, resulting in their complete defeat at the savage Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September.

Having successfully disposed of one menace to his throne, sometime between 29 September and 1 October Harold was notified that the long awaited invasion of Saxon England by William of Normandy had taken place. He now had no choice but to return to the south to deal with this new threat.

Harold marches south


From York the King raced southwards toward London. Again, the earlier damage to his fleet prevented him from moving south by water. But Harold did not lead the same army he had taken north in September. Most likely, he only led the core of that force. These would have included his housecarls (originally mercenary troops recruited from Scandinavia, this elite professional military force rode to battle but fought on foot; read more about them in Raffaele D’Amato’s article in Medieval Warfare II-1), as well as his brother Gyrth’s contingent of similar troop types. Absent on the return to the south were many of Harold’s original army. This was due to the heavy casualties the army had sustained at Stamford Bridge, as well as a lack of vital supplies and transport needed to move all soldiers. This was largely the result of the king’s inability to procure these resources from the North Country. (Remember, the crown had no great landed estates or financial institutions in the north from which it could recruit soldiers or gather needed supplies for its army, not even if he paid for it. Politically, as well as culturally, the authority of the crown was almost nil in this part of England.)

The northern earls and their men were also absent from the march to the south. They had suffered severe losses at the Battle of Fulford (25 September 1066), where Hardrada’s army crushed the local Saxon forces in Yorkshire under the Northern Earls Edwin and Morcar (for more information, read Charles Jones’ article about the Battle of Fulford in Medieval Warfare I-3). It took these regional leaders time to raise and equip new forces and then march south, which explains why they were not present at Hastings to aid their king.

An old army replaced by a new one

By 8 or 9 October, Harold reached his capital. Before his arrival in London, he had sent out royal summons to the different shires in the Midlands and southeast of England, calling on his subjects to muster for military service. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D version refers to this as the raising of a new army. The classes of recruits for this new host took two forms: the ‘general’ fyrd, and the ‘select’ fyrd. The former were made up of all the freemen of an area which were obligated to turnout for the defense of their locality only. They had practically no military training. The latter was a body of part time militia that would serve the king outside of the region they were originally raised from (more information on the fyrd, as well as on King Alfred the Great’s military reforms, can be found in Medieval Warfare III-5). By these calls to the colors, Harold was able to raise another army – a new one – and have it assemble at London. Further, this meant that the bulk of this new army would be reasonably rested and supplied and ready to follow the king to the Sussex coast where the Norman invaders had landed. On the minus side of the ledger, except for the king’s household fighters – the housecarls – the bulk of the army Harold lead to Hastings against the Normans would have been untested in battle.

After arriving in London, Harold lingered there for a day or two, resting his veterans from the campaign in the north and absorbing daily arriving reinforcements. Then the king moved the 60 miles (96 km) to where the enemy was encamped, near Hastings. This Saxon maneuver was conducted at a more leisurely pace than the march to York the month before. The three day sojourn, at a rate of about 20 miles a day, did not over overtax the troops, assured secure sources of supply, kept the army concentrated, and allowed for reinforcements to join the main column in a timely manner.

Before the king departed for the coast, his mother and brother, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D version, begged him to be cautious, saying to him that, “You have just returned worn out after the war against the Norwegians; are you now hastening to move against the Normans.” Some historians point to this as a sign that the army Harold was gathering was itself tired and in disarray due to its exertions on the march and in battle since September. But the above facts suggest that it was not the army that the king’s relatives were concerned about, but Harold’s current health and judgment. The force he was leading against the Normans was fresh, strong and probably possessed cohesion; the worry in the royal court was about the mental and physical fatigue Harold must have been suffering from as a result of his exertions of the last few weeks.

A tired Saxon army, or an understrength one?

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle E version suggests that Harold set out from London too soon (on 11 October), “before all his host came up.” John of Worchester expanded on this idea by writing that the king had only ”half his host” when he marched for Sussex. But the author then goes on to relate that the narrowness of the Saxon position at Hastings prevented a full deployment of Harold’s army, rather than there being a depleted number of English troops. This seems logical, since the length of the coming fight – which commenced at around 9 am and ended at dusk (about 8 pm) – and its intensity makes it likely that there was no lack of English troops involved in the engagement.

Norman sources, such as William of Poitiers, chaplain to Duke William, suggest that Harold’s motive for quickly coming to grips with the Normans was to prevent further damage to the king’s estates in Sussex, which the invaders had been ravanging since early October. But he never says that the king’s haste made him move with only a part of his army, or that the Saxons were understrength when they came to Hastings.

Other Norman accounts mention the possibility that Harold’s movements were prompted by the desire to repeat the surprise attack on Hardrada, but this time with the Duke of Normandy as the target. This is a logical conclusion, since Harold was a bold commander who had been successful with such stratagem very recently, i.e. at Stamford Bridge. This would seem to counter the argument that the Saxon army was tired or below strength. A force in such a condition is usually unable to execute such ambitious schemes with precision and celerity. Further, this ties in nicely with the general attitude toward war of Anglo-Saxon military forces of the period: the desire to come to grips with the enemy as soon as possible and engage in a decisive battle. (In contrast, the Norman practice stressed campaigns of maneuver and a proclivity towards siege warfare to bring about successful military conclusions).

The physical condition of Harold’s army is further brought in to relief on the eve of the Battle of Hastings by the remarks of William of Jumieges in his The Gesta Normanorum Ducum (‘Deeds of the Dukes of Normandy’), and the twelfth century Medieval historian William of Malmesbury in his Gesta Regum Anglorum (‘History of the Kings of England’). The former states that the English army had marched all night, arriving on the battlefield at dawn. Common sense would indicate that the men would have been worn out by this recent exertion. But William of Malmesbury says that the Saxons spent the entire night before the battle singing and drinking. So were the Saxon’s on the move during the time immediately before the fight, or were they encamped resting and enjoying themselves before the blood bath of the next day? Either way, the Saxons fought very well and continuously at Hastings which indicates neither fatigue nor the poor morale which accompanies tired soldiers. On the contrary, both stories seems to point to a force brimming with confidence.

Even after the Saxon defeat at Hastings, there was no sign of a tired or disheartened English army. William of Poitiers wrote that after the battle, London was crammed with Saxon troops, “A crowd of warriors from elsewhere had flocked there, and the city, despite its great size could scarcely accommodate them all.” A portion of these men were doubtless soldiers previously summonsed by Harold, others were survivors from the battle, or as the 800 line poem Carmen de Hastings Proelio (‘Song of the Battle of Hastings’) recorded “the obstinate men who had been defeated in battle.”

Conclusion

The Battle of Hastings pitted opposing armies of approximately the same strength (i.e. around 8,000 men) against one another. The ensuing engagement lasted about 11 hours with heavy fighting and severe losses taking place the entire time. The endurance of the Saxon command, assailed by Norman heavy cavalry, showered by enemy arrow volleys, as well as the launching of two major attacks of their own, shows that that force was in no way a spent or tired one before the battle. In fact, it seems to have been a newly raised and rested army which took the field a few weeks before Hastings and in no way was depleted in manpower or resolve, though it is possible that the lack of experience of the newly raised troops gave the Normans another edge in battle.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-03-29, 04:40:48