There is a sense of doom leading up to the 2012 elections.  A sense that America is doomed.  Ever more voices arise declaring they shall not live under socialism or communism.  Regardless what next year’s elections outcome will be.

Political historian Larry Schweikart asserts that America is more divided now than it was during the Civil War.  Yet even such dire words cannot express the real severity of the division.  For even while America’s economy fails, the division cannot be understood merely in terms of failing economics.  Nor is it only America so divided.  Like a crack of doom, the rupture runs unabated through all Western culture.  All Western discourse and public spheres are collapsing beneath an astonishing and crushing stupidity.  An utter ideological corruption destroying us economically, dividing us socio-politically and disintegrating our very identities as Western people.

From America’s credit crisis and Europe’s defaulting economies to Norway’s home-grown terrorist murders, one way or another, a surging wave of calamity attests the West’s clashing ideological antagonisms.  Less flagrant yet more fatal, half the people in Western societies revile rather than speak to the other half.  And while coming to blows through violence in the streets, through mass unrest and murders and civil wars runs counter to our tolerant and democratic traditions – nevertheless there appears no logical possibility remaining to compromise or resolve our most fundamental divisions.

Just imagine two neighbours.  Any neighbours living next door.  Next door to you, most likely.

There are routine greetings.  Climate is mentioned daily, sometimes twice or thrice when there’s weather to speak of.  But when it comes to values, beliefs, who we are, what we stand for or against?  Silence.  Rather than declaring who we are, it’s more as if we have nothing whatever to declare.

Yet the appearance of terminal shallowness is deceiving.  In covert fact, all too many neighbours seethe internally.  Grow more outraged from one day to the next.  From one hour to the next.  But silently.  Knowing how easily genuine self-expression could hurl us at each other’s throats.  We have no option but struggling to maintain placidly shallow appearances.  No peaceful option.

We agree something is terribly wrong.  But because we so fundamentally disagree what is wrong, we cannot really talk about it.  We can’t even mention what’s really wrong without exposing how fundamentally we disagree.  How violently.  And while it isn’t just neighbours so fundamentally divided – our media and governments are equally divided – it is the utter division between neighbours tearing Western social fabric from its once vibrant richness to today’s ragged shreds.

It isn’t just Democrats and Republicans gone too ideologically far to compromise as the future crashes and burns in the balance.  It’s all of us in the Western street.  In every Western neighbourhood.

Between two neighbours, one fundamentally believes, beyond any shadow or capacity for doubt, that Western society is being decimated by unscrupulous, unrestricted, unregulated, laissez-faire neoliberal piracy.  That the corporatist state not only disenfranchises and victimizes – but viciously assails and vilifies precisely those most disenfranchised and victimized by it.   That the essential language of our shared responsibilities has been undermined by a reactionary rhetoric of purely personal responsibility designed to deny voice, extinguish breath and exact every recourse from the trammeled.  A reactionary rhetoric designed to inculcate and to inseminate even the poorest and hungriest with the venomous ideology of purely personal responsibility for their own hunger and poverty.  Designed to contradict the very existence of circumstances and social forces beyond all personal responsibility or control.  Forces that can and too often are contrived to crush, savage and vitiate particularly the vulnerable.

Between two neighbours, the other believes no less fundamentally that Western society is being decimated.  Not by failing social responsibility, though.  To the contrary.  By the failure of personal responsibility.  By the rabid and virulent assault, across Western welfare states, not only against our core Western values and the means of honest production – but against the very meaning of productivity.  Against any sane production of meaning.  Thus, the worst failure is due not just to entrenchment of individual irresponsibility and generational dependence on government.  It is not just how big government runs amok.  Western societies used to be sufficiently productive to propagate, to lift and to carry entire classes of not-workers.  Worst is the prevailing cult of personal irresponsibility that has come about in the permanent shadow of false entitlement.  The performance of victimhood.  The condemnation of achievement as illegitimate privilege.  Because no society can survive so radical an inversion of its scruples and fundamental values.  An inversion that makes individual life a ward of the state, enshrines human parasites over the bodies of honest workers and elevates narratives of victimhood to tramp the tale of human achievement into meaningless corruption.  That’s what’s worst.  Tramping what is most valiant and meaningful in sewage of shame.

Extreme views?  Most individuals do not subscribe to views that extreme?  Perhaps not yet.  Not knowingly.  But certainly this contradictory, divided understanding of the function of responsibility in fairness and social justice sunders us individually no less than it ruptures our economics, media and politics.  There is no conspiracy sufficient to divide us.  No left or right wing conspiracy in Western media.  No left or right wing conspiracy in western politics.  There’s only our fundamentally divided understanding of responsibility in fairness and social justice.  Our views growing ever more extremely divided, cleaving and embittering us as neighbours, inexorably yet routinely reflecting in our institutions.

We know it, too.  Though we don’t much like thinking about it, this is all terribly familiar.  Like a seeping sore, festering in, and due, to ignorance.  Beyond vague allusions to far left and right, even adequate terminology is lacking from our language.  Despite how, in everyday reality, Western society is staved by ideological clashing between neo-liberalism – no hale liberalism could have suggested the abnegation of all collective responsibility – and neo-Marxism – no sane interpretation of Marxism could have imagined the abnegation of all individual responsibility.

The everyday reality is that Western culture is torn by ideologies no less extreme than either the communisms or fascisms of the 20th century.  Alas, it is precisely because we so stolidly strive to ignore the gaping rupture in Western culture that we fail to not only address it – but even to recognize its most crucial, critical character.  How totally Western our ideologies are.  How they afflict all Western culture.  How they afflict only Western culture.

Principles of fairness, equality and social justice have long been fundamental Western values.   They have been our brightest ideals, illuminating and making it possible to live, to work, to dispute and to decide together – without coming to blows – in myriad pluralistic, marvelous, historically unprecedented ways.  We can and do agree we have to be fair in the West.  In large part, fairness defines what it means to be Western.  Fairness, the ideal, unites us.

But, simultaneously, we cannot agree what fairness really means.  We clash always more zealously over questions of fairness in practice.  And while ideal fairness unites us – false, absurd and harmful ideologies of fairness divide us utterly.

Today, one of two neighbours  can no longer conceive personal responsibility.  Every material disparity provokes railing against the unfairness, the inequality and the social injustice of it.  The other neighbour has no concept of social responsibility.   The typical response to disparity, regardless how extreme, is: “Get a real job.  You bum.”  On the left, ideological oblivion to personal responsibility corrupts ideal fairness into wanton addictions and depraved dependence on unsustainable entitlement.  On the right, ideological oblivion to collective responsibility mangles fairness to suit some false meritocracy where citizens might as well die in the streets through no fault of their own.  No fault other than having been overwhelmed by circumstances outside their control.

The West is divided beyond rupture.  Crumbling institutionally, fragmenting constituently.  There’s no hope bonding together again.  Not unless we first recognize and genuinely appreciate how united we stand for ideal fairness.  And second, not unless we cease discounting both individual and collective irresponsibility when questioning fairness in practice.  The left must realize that personal irresponsibility multiplies disparities beyond any scope of social redress.  The right must comprehend that collective irresponsibility aggravates disparity beyond all possible individual remedies.

It is past time to appreciate fairness as our common ideal – and get over our ideologies of it.  Otherwise it’s too late for Western culture and societies.  Altogether.

If only it were possible to recognize fairness as our ideal.  In actuality, there is bound to be more skepticism – even more-so as we cling to our patently divisive ideologies.  How and why has fairness become so fundamental in Western culture?

The correct answer is deceptively simple.  Western culture is rooted in fairness because it is no longer rooted in faith.  But there is bound to be incredulity that Western culture is no longer rooted in faith.  Nor can simple answers explain how and why faith gave way to fairness.  In order to explain, the tale must be told.  The tale of faith grudgingly, bitterly, haltingly – unavoidably – giving way to fairness.  The story of the origin of fairness as the Western ideal.

It began, like so many stories, somewhat arbitrarily long since.  Certainly church and faith ruled one thousand years back.  Absolutely and unequivocally.  Increasingly during the past millennium, though, Western culture broke trust with church and faith-based knowing.  As a culture, we abandoned absolute, god-given truths – and replaced our trust in provisionally evident, fallible truths.  Truths that hinge on available evidence.  Truths that change from one day to the next.  That alter as new evidence continues arriving.  Which it does.  Continually arrive.  Every single day.

We do recall past prophets leading to our present materialism.  Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin.  Yet even as we remember those most instrumental transforming Western culture, we fail to appreciate the scope of our cultural transformation.  How the epistemic shift from faith-based to evidence-based knowing spanned a millennium, how tectonic it persists as we speak – how thoroughly it implicates the totality of our ways of knowing.  More so than anything else, how it defines Western culture.

However unrecognized, the implications of the shift in our ways of knowing are astounding.  It was not just burgeoning science and technology entailed by hobbling faith with evidence.  Freedom, democracy, tolerance, fairness and social justice were no less entailed.  Today’s cultural principles and core Western values could not have existed while faith-based knowing prevailed.  Could not exist in the context of cultures where fundamentalist faith in absolute god-given truths triumphs.  Cannot survive in societies ruled largely by temple, church or mosque.

Whatever biblical violence was originally required making god’s truths manifest to the people – there could be no questioning, no debate once god’s own truths had been revealed.  There could only be yet greater violence – reflecting some presumably greater god’s truths – or obedience and submission to god’s social orders.  One’s proper assigned place in society was necessarily ordained as anything in god’s divine creation and the ordering of nature.  Questioning could signify only confusion to god’s will.  Debating could only mean resistance to god’s plan.  Diabolical enmity to god himself.

But after Copernicus, Galileo and Newton?  After Darwin drove that last spike through god’s coffin while making such complete monkeys out of us?  Nietzche confirmed god dead and, as a culture, we lost every faith in the truths god gave.  It was alright, though.  It was better that way.  That novel new way of knowing.  Because our faith alone had once been blind.  Whereas, by hobbling faith with evidence, the West could begin to see.  Western people could begin to understand.

Absent definitive, pre-ordained, indisputable truths to sanctify every social injustice, questioning and debating became not only possible and meaningful – but absolutely necessary.  The tectonic transformation in our way of knowing gave rise to everything we now take as granted.  Pluralism and constitutionally lawful dissent, human rights and tolerance, freedom and democracy, fairness, equality and social justice.  Indeed, when it came to questions of politics, public morality, the individual’s place in society, it was humanitarian fairness, equality and social justice we turned to for answers.  When questioning public morality in the West, in a very real sense, fairness replaced god.

Now we’ve come to terminal disagreements about what fairness really means.  And because ideal fairness has displaced divinity, our disagreements are as terminal and fundamental as the divisions over divine revelations in faith based cultures.  Consequently, we can have either cultural breakdowns, paralysis, fragmentation, reformations and ultimately sectarian violence.  Or we can begin to recognize and appreciate the common commitment to ideal fairness.  Appreciate what is so positively unique to Western cultural identity.  Begin realizing our division is not so much over ideal fairness – as it is about the ideological perversions of that admirable principle.

That’s the imperative message to launch out there.  Fairness demands both personal and social, individual and collective responsibility.  Neither may be removed.  The idolatry of irresponsibility – be it personal or social irresponsibility – must cease.  The perversion of fairness must desist.  Let’s stop desecrating our highest, most fundamental Western ideal with such perverse ideologies.  Stop before it’s too late.  Before the self-destruction gets all biblical.

Obama’s first Mid-East speech barely got Palestinians and Israelis to the table.  His recent speeches will get them nowhere.

Not that the speeches were bad, of course.  No Obama speech was ever bad.  Saudis should not have called them meaningless drivel.  Just because there are principles one disagrees, that does not make disagreeable principles meaningless.  Israel’s Netanyahu should not have said Obama does not understand reality.  That is too harsh given the aim to forge better realities.

Obama’s speeches sure were naive, though.

Tremendous hope was expressed – and some help offered – for Arab Spring uprisings.  Rightly so.  By March and April Muslims everywhere appeared to rise against despotism, against tyranny, perhaps against Islamism – militant Islamic fundamentalism – itself.  Western hearts and minds went out to them.  In necessarily small ways – so their revolution would indeed be theirs – we even tried to help.  It is with fists but impotently clenched we continue watching Syria’s Assad slaughter his own.   When Iran’s Khamenei was said to turn against Ahmadinejad, we could but pray this augured well.  We noticed with wonder how, in the shadows of uprisings and uncertainties afflicting its bigger brothers’ regimes, even Hamas – the Islamist society most overtly chartered on genocide – had stopped shooting.

Not mentioned, however, was another unprecedented first.  One we all failed to notice.  The entire absence of Israel from international headline news in March and April.  But so what?  This was no wonder.  The vital struggles for democracy were foremost everywhere else in the Mid-East.  Since Israel is a democracy, since Israel was not being attacked – and since Israel always fights only in self-defense – there was simply nothing internationally worth-while to report.  No sufficiently spectacular violence, in any event.

Until May 15^th.  When, as Patrick Martin reported to the Globe, Israel’s borders suddenly sizzled with violence:

Emboldened by Arab uprisings across the region, young Palestinians triggered widespread clashes.. with confrontation as never before during peace time; from Qalandia refugee camp, north of Jerusalem.. to Gaza.. to Lebanon.. [and] on the Golan Heights…

Mr. Martin distinguished the recent Naqba clashes as going against “.. the very existence of the Jewish state.”  And that’s correct.  The Nakba – catastrophe – is not against so-called occupation.  It is not even against how Palestine was partitioned into Jordan and Israel in the 1920s and 1940s.  It is only against Israel continuing to exist.  There would be no Nakba attacks against Israel’s borders on Israel’s 63^rd birthday if, in 1948, Israel had been wiped out within 2 weeks – as had been expected and promised.  Nor if Israel would have been properly destroyed as Nasser absolutely guaranteed in 1967.  Nor if the surprise 1973 invasion had panned out, as it ought have, in Israel’s thorough genocide.

Consequently, too glaringly since the May 15^th Naqba clashes, such heartfelt parallels as President Obama drew between Arab uprisings and America’s revolutionary past could only come across as terribly naive – if not outright delusional.  Because this month the world has been too starkly reminded again how little in common Arab uprisings have with former American, French, even Russian revolutions.  To the contrary.  The Mid-East remains the same cultural and ideological tinder-box where not the most glaring contradictions can be superseded.   Such as the difference between struggling to build one’s own democratic societies – and always aiming to destroy someone else’s.  Invariably seeking to destroy the Mid-East’s only real, existing democratic society.

Israel shall not continue to exist.  No principle is more universal to Mid-East culture outside Israel.  Nor is the fundamental principle of Israel’s destruction and genocide wilting in the Arab Spring.  Instead, this Arab Spring, emboldened by uprisings throughout the region, cultural certitude that Israel must and shall be destroyed blooms yet more fully.

The principle that Israel shall be destroyed means that surrounding nations must continue falsely blaming Israel for scattering the Palestinian people.  It means that descendants of Palestinian refugees must themselves remain perpetual refugees in camps for refugees.  And though it cannot be the case that none care about the Palestinian refugees – everyone cares – nevertheless to settle refugees or even their descendants outside Israel would contravene the principle of Israel’s destruction.  Therefore, regardless how many generations shall pass, the descendants of refugees cannot be tolerated to settle.

The principle of Israel’s necessary destruction also entails that even if Israel were to concede most everything demanded – as it did concede to the PLO’s Yasser Arafat in Oslo – still, there could be no recognition of Israel’s right to exist.  Because recognizing Israel’s right to exist simply means not trying to destroy Israel any longer – thereby fundamentally contradicting the principle.  That’s why, even while signing letters of mutual recognition, Arafat had to announce in Arabic that he didn’t really mean it.  He wasn’t really recognizing Israel’s right to exist.  It was just a hudna.

Yet Obama was absolutely right to declare: “The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”  The Palestinian nation must have a country.  Must be enabled to secure freedom, autonomy, sovereignty and independence.  It could not matter less whether Palestinians used to be Egyptians or Jordanians prior to 1967.  They are Palestinians today.  They must have a real country today.  A viable country.  A contiguous country.  A country to be proud of.  A country Palestinians will proudly work to build instead of always looking to destroy someone else’s.

How, though?  Given the principle of Israel’s necessary destruction, how can Palestinians be expected to not keep trying to destroy Israel?  Particularly so when the destruction of Israel is required not only by fundamental principle – but also by the very geographic ground?  For while Palestinians continue lamenting how Israeli settlements built on land they want for a state will deny them a viable and contiguous country, the brute geographic fact remains that even should every Israeli settlement be dismantled overnight.  Or even if Israel should trade away thrice the land area it has settled.  There could still be no contiguous country for Palestinians.  Not if Israel itself is to remain contiguous.

Regardless all else.  Should Gaza and the West Bank be contiguously connected — then Israel must become divided and itself cease to exist contiguously.  Whereas if Israel continues to exist contiguously — then Gaza and the West Bank cannot be contiguously connected.

It seems hopeless – particularly so since Obama’s dismal Mid-East foreign policy record to date.  But it isn’t entirely hopeless.  It only seems that way.  Obama was right that occupation must end and Palestinians must have their contiguous country.  But he was wrong not to say how and why Palestinians should cease seeking to destroy Israel instead.  And he was dead wrong to insist on 1967 borders.  Because, with one cardinal exception, every Israeli withdrawal has led to war.  Every Israeli withdrawal – from Lebanon, from Gaza – has signified nothing but Israeli weakness and fabulous opportunity for those devoted to Israel’s destruction.

Destroying Israel is like apple pie and maple syrup in the Mid-East.  Stars, stripes and maple leaves all rolled in one.  It is geographically ordained to establish a contiguous Palestine.  It is historically ordained to defeat the Crusaders.  Every mullah and any imam worth his salt – not just Ahmadinejad – exhorts it.  There can be but zero tolerance for a non-Muslim state in the tent of Islam.  How could it be more than empty, sardonic rhetoric for Netanyahu to tell the U.S. Congress that it is time for Palestinians to say ‘I will accept a Jewish state’?

It could be more.  It would not even be unprecedented.  Because that is exactly what Anwar Sadat said to Menachem Begin.  And when Begin realized that Sadat truly meant what he said, that’s when Israel withdrew from more territory than it kept for itself.  That’s when there was enduring peace with Egypt – formerly Israel’s worst, most dangerous enemy ever.

Obama cannot alter Mid-East culture.  He can’t stop calls for Israel to be wiped off the map – as at Ahmadinejad’s website.  He can’t change the Hamas Charter or Fatah Constitution predicating Israel’s destruction.  But he does not have to.  All Obama must do, to give peace a fighting chance, is persuade Abbas to say what Sadat did.  To accept the existence of Israel.

Only Obama can persuade Abbas.  No other Western leader can do it.  But, in order to succeed, Obama must first make a real, genuine offer to Palestinians.  Not, once again, dis-contiguous territories appended onto 1967 borders.   It is no solution to carve one marginally viable country into two that are not.  Two countries bound to one another like dogs scrapping over one morsel insufficient for survival.  The country of Palestine should be larger than Israel — not yet smaller and less viable.  That’s why the solution has got to be regional.  That’s why everyone — not just Israel — has got to chip in.  Egypt can contribute a little from the northern Sinai.  Jordan can contribute a little from the east bank.

Only Obama can bring Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians and Israelis to one table.  Only so gathered, at that table, can Abbas be persuaded there could be a viable, contiguous Palestine – without necessarily destroying Israel.  A Palestine potentially larger than Israel as continuing to exist.  A Palestinian state ranging from Gaza eastward through the Sinai.  Across the Gulf.  Northward through the east bank and West Bank both.  With ports opening in the Gulf and on the Mediterranean.  Both.

Why not?  These would only be territorial crumbs.  Territorial crumbs which, together, would add up to a viable, contiguous Palestine.  To a dignified future for Palestinians.  To a genuine prayer for world peace.

Only President Obama can begin to make it happen.  Not with speeches like the ones he has made in the past, though.  Only with words much more like these:

Come on, Muslim brothers.  Contribute.  Just some crumbs from your laden territorial tables.  The days of the Palestinian people foddering your cannons against Israel are over.  You threatened Palestinians to leave, to get out of your way when you came shooting to genocide Israel in 1948.  Yet Israel still remains.  You promised Palestinians they’d return to feasting on the corpse of Israel.  And not only haven’t you delivered to this day and age — you continue burying the Palestinian people, heaping perpetual shame on them as refugees.  As if Israel still standing were their fault instead of yours.  But it was your threats and broken promises, Muslim brothers, which broke and scattered Palestinians from their homes.  It is also your duty, Muslim brothers, to contribute making the Palestinian people whole.

Contribute, Muslim brothers.  Don’t shrug off every responsibility onto Israel — there must be more honour.  Give up dreaming of genocide already.  You’ve been trying for 60 years.  Wake up.  If god were willing, you would long since have succeeded.  Help make the future better, please.  Not always worse.  Come on.  How hard can it be? Any future would be better.

In 2005, Toronto became dubiously distinguished as the first city in the world to host “Israeli Apartheid Week” (IAW).  Much as flames kindle by a smoldering fringe, the popularity of IAW events in Toronto ignited from year to year.  In 2009, rallies and other IAW-related demonstrations at Toronto’s York University began combusting well organized, un-spontaneous riots.

Alas, if 2009 IAW sparked borderline riots – then 2010 became the water bucket in which IAW damped and fizzled.  Perhaps inevitably so after concerted denunciation of IAW events by Toronto media – and after highly profiled members of all three major Canadian political parties unprecedentedly, simultaneously condemned IAW itself as illicitly seeking to undermine and delegitimize the state of Israel.

IAW had grown too large for mainstream Canadians to continue ignoring.  Consequently, Canadians expressed their disgust for IAW.

Yet, even if mainstream Canadians would much prefer Toronto give up on IAW – IAW is not prepared to give up on Toronto.  Of course not.  This is where IAW began.  From IAW’s perspective, Toronto must feel like home.  IAW will not leave quietly.

That’s why, in 2011, IAW organizers have outdone themselves gathering the brightest fringe luminaries they could find – then charged their luminaries with proselytizing Toronto’s main university campuses.  They have outdone themselves gathering fringe luminaries so bright, even mainstream Canadians may already have heard their names.  Judy Butler’s, for instance.

That’s right.  Judy Butler, the brightest luminary in the IAW arsenal, is coming to town.  And there can be no doubting that Ms. Butler proselytizing on their behalf is a tremendous coup for IAW organizers.

Possibly no one has done more, famously, to license anti-Israeli expression than Judy Butler.  When the President of Harvard University argued that some forms of anti-Israeli expression are anti-semitic “in effect, if not in intent,” Butler retorted, “No, it’s not anti-semitic”.  And while she did not argue particularly well – the bulk of her retort was devoted to groping for the meaning of “in effect” – the mere fact she argued as a progressive Jewish luminary made pseudo-academic headlines.

Three distinct contentions emerged, legibly if not clearly, from Butler’s retort.  First, that identifying any expression as anti-semitic in effect if not intent damages academic freedom – in effect even if not intent.  Thereby, from the first, Butler perhaps intentionally mis-construed the fundamental significance of academic freedom.

Because free and democratic societies must value knowledge, understanding  and, above all, truth – therefore expressions of truth should not be curtailed any time the truths expressed are unfamiliar, frightening, inconvenient, even dangerous.  This is the sort of value academic freedom reflects.  When academics, however, persist spouting spectacular contradictions in the name of truth?  Then no sanctuary can or should obtain in the name of truth and academic freedom against charges of incompetence – or worse.

This is precisely the case when it comes to alleging Israeli apartheid – as, no doubt, Butler most passionately will this coming Israeli Apartheid Week in Toronto.  For Israel always fights only in self-defense.  That’s a fact Butler not only does not deny but tacitly affirms in opposing the view, as she put it, “.. that anything that Israel does in the name of self-defense is legitimate and ought not to be questioned.”  Yet nothing can be more offensive than apartheid. Apartheid is totally offensive.  Apartheid logically cannot be – whether wholly or even partly – in self-defense.  Hence, the equation of apartheid with Israel logically cannot be.  It is too obviously glaring a contradiction.

No academic freedom can account for so obviously glaring a contradiction – so belligerently and dogmatically expressed to exclude any possibility of rational dissent.  To the contrary.  One can only wonder whether those academics equating Israel with apartheid are merely, utterly incompetent – or, worse, if they are thoroughly anti-semitic.

Butler’s second discernible contention, essentially, is that no nation or state can be immune to criticism due only to victimhood and past suffering of its peoples.  As another state among nations, there must be space allocated in the public sphere to critical commentary on Israel.  Yet this second contention fails even to qualify as a straw-man.

No country can be immune to fair criticism.  Of course not.  But the singular unfairness of anti-Israeli criticism begs the question why criticism of Israel cannot be fair – not why Israel should not be criticized.  For when criticism constitutes only glaring contradictions blaring in near or full riotous belligerence?  Then criticism long ceases to be fair.  It does not begin to be fair.  It ceases even to be criticism.  It becomes a celebration of hatred.  A hate-fest.

Butler’s last and least contention seems to be that it’s just too hurtful to label Jews with anti-semitism – whether in intent or in effect – for expressing criticism of Israel:

If we think that to criticise Israeli violence, or to call for economic pressure to be put on the Israeli state to change its policies, is to be ‘effectively anti-semitic’, we will fail to voice our opposition for fear of being named as part of an anti-semitic enterprise. No label could be worse for a Jew…

This last can be summarily dismissed.  For anti-semitism is all about hatred – not reason.  Charges of anti-semitism pertain to mongering hate – not expressing fair criticism.  And just as Butler’s participation in the anti-Israeli IAW hate-fest utterly ignores the feelings of all individuals who recognize Israel as the sole bastion of democracy in the Middle-East – just so, in fairness, Butler’s feelings ought to be equally ignored.  It becomes surreal to lock steps with the utmost in public hate-mongering – then become entirely plaintive that anyone should be so insensitive to point it out.

In any event, IAW is too obviously and stridently anti-semitic in effect to leave much room for wondering how anti-semitic it is in intent.  Even more importantly, while Islamist societies mow down their own citizens daring to stand up for some democratic reforms, IAW participants frenzy to delegitimize the only true democracy in the Middle-East where Muslim citizens have real human rights.  And that’s just plain evil.

It was simultaneous.  Happening just as activists were preparing to mount their anti-Israeli posters on Seattle-area buses.   Posters decrying so-called Israeli war crimes as “Your Tax Dollars at Work”.

What was simultaneously happening during Christmas, 2010?  For one thing, Mahmoud Abbas vowed that any future Palestinian state would be “Judenrein” — thoroughly cleansed of Israelis.  “If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” proclaimed Abbas to reporters in Ramallah.

For another thing, Hamas issued an ultimatum that Israel has only two options: die — or leave Palestine for parts unknown.  Meanwhile, as a Qassam rocket was exploding near the town of Ashkelon, Hamas was also reassuring gullible media that it continues to seek only “calm”.

It was all happening at once, this Christmas.  All simultaneous — and ever so surreal.  What other nation — never mind one smaller than New York (City!) in population — always fighting only in self-defense could be so maligned?  None other, of course.  Only Israel — the Middle East’s sole democracy.

Anti-Israeli bus ads in Seattle — when societies routinely vowing the destruction of Israel never cease attacking.  While Iran’s Ahmadinejad, at his very own official website,  calls for Israel to get wiped off the map.  While the Palestinian Authority and Hamas continue to be constituted and chartered, respectively, on Israel’s genocide.

The anti-Israeli posters on Seattle-area buses are no huge deal.  They are just too absurd. Too easily ridiculed.  Like, seriously — just to survive, Israel always fights only in self-defense. And how can there be war crimes in self-defense? Aren’t war crimes supposed to be totally offensive?

Indeed, what coherence can there be to the bitterness, rancour and acrimony concerning how Israel is forced to defend itself? How often Israel must shoot back in self-defense?  Perhaps, rather than demanding Israel shoot back more sensitively, critics of Israeli self-defense ought to consider the novelty of not shooting at Israel in the first place — so Israel won’t have to shoot back at all.

Even the relevance of Israel has become very questionable in glaring light of ongoing Islamist attacks against the international community. Ever since the attacks on New York, London, Bali, Moscow, Madrid and Mumbai — to name a spectacular few — there are far more burning questions. Such as why Islamists — militant Islamic fundamentalists — must always keep shooting, exploding and so forth.  Why only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions, terrorize every other culture there is and righteously enslave women.

As it turns, the anti-Israeli bus ads are no deal at all.  During the writing of this article, the advertisements have been rejected.  Yet the larger absurdity remains.  Why does Israel continue to be maligned?  Despite standing so far out as the Mid-East’s sole democracy?  Despite absorbing the lion’s share of total Islamist aggression?  Despite always fighting only in self-defense — merely to survive?

In considerable part, it is due to the concerted Islamist campaign of demonization and delegitimization.  A campaign to which Western media became full, eager partners during the latter 20th century.  And though much is now expressed, finally, in opposition to the concerted campaign against Israel, two particulars command emphasis.

First, the demonization and delegitimation campaign against Israel did not begin with Western media participation.  The campaign began far earlier — and endured despite decades during which, falsely, Israel could do no wrong in Western media.  In fact, the campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel effectively began shortly before Israel even existed — with the obscene Dir Yassin hoax.  A hoax designed to clear the way for invading Arab armies in 1948, scatter Israel’s muslims as refugees — and persisting as an incontrovertible ideological truth to this day.

Second, while all Islamist military efforts to eradicate Israel have dismally failed to date — the campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel has succeeded brilliantly.  As such, the campaign itself has become an article of cultural pride and irrefutable ideological faith.  Thus, the current international discredit of the once canonical Israel-Apartheid equation cannot mean the campaign itself shall wane.  It only means that efforts to construct the next great slander intensify.  There must be another successive international revilation to legitimate the increasingly genocidal anti-Israel hysteria.

Not every attempt to delegitimize Israel can become pandemic, of course.  Often fake footage and misleading false quotes allegedly by Israeli leaders are readily debunked.  The Seattle bus ads were too summarily ridiculed to even make it onto Seattle buses.  But the next great slander appears to already have been contrived.  One that could prove more potent, more pejoratively productive than any prior — including Deir Yassin and Israel-Apartheid.

Profoundly inspired by abject Obama Administration failure to broker even direct talks of a two-state solution, there is bursting fervor over the next blueprint for genocide.  Over the one-state final solution.  And one electric stimulus for the current blueprint’s flaring edition, as widely reported in Mid-East media — i.e., “Can Obama outwit Netanyahu?” — appears to be George Bisharat’s Washington Post “Israel and Palestine: A true one-state solution” article.

Bisharat begins with the typically misleading, standard, almost certainly deliberate falsehoods.  Lies.  But only half-heartedly.  He does not do the standard lies proper injustice.  Instead, he quickly segues to a more zealous message of hope.  That’s where his article glows, shines — ultimately, literally, flares.

“A de facto one-state reality has emerged,” argues Bisharat, “with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine.”  Incidentally, that’s a thoroughly standard lie.  Virtually 80% of the former Palestine was granted to (Trans)Jordan — a “Judenrein” state reserved exclusively for Palestinians and completely forbidden to Jews.  But never mind.

Bisharat continues:

Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people…  The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege…  History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.

It all sounds so eminently reasonable, doesn’t it.  Even if riddled with too many falsehoods to easily count.  For one, it is Muslim and Jewish citizens of Israel living together.  Non-citizen Palestinians, in what Bisharat himself denounces as “apartheid”, are now mostly barred from Israel.  Palestinians who, in the West Bank or Gaza, belong to tremendously distinct societies.  Palestinian societies so distinct, in fact — they are constituted and chartered, respectively, on the destruction of Israel.  On genocide.

Moreover, and yet more incidentally, all citizens of Israel — Muslim, Christian, Jewish — enjoy equal rights.  Too ironically, Muslim Israeli citizens enjoy human rights unavailable to them elsewhere throughout the Mid-East’s Islamic — and Islamist — societies.  Israel is the Mid-East’s sole democracy.

But again — never mind.  Let’s wink, nudge and ignore the almost certainly knowing falsehoods.  Regardless how false Bisharat’s premises — is his conclusion not, nevertheless, true?  Does it not rise far above the ideological mire?  Does in not give expression to a cornerstone of Western culture?  To a cherished ideal?

There’s no denying Bisharat’s appeal to “principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege.”  Bisharat is appealing to the most fundamental Western cultural principle.  To our Western tolerance.

What unbelievable travesty.  No doubt Bisharat would just love us to believe the conflicts between Islamist societies, the West and Israel are ethnic.  That our entire global trouble is how racist we are.  What’s really racist, though?  Precisely Bisharat’s analysis of the conflicts as if they were ethnic in origin.  As if.

Islam is every race and ethnicity.  Christianity is every race and ethnicity.  Judaism is every race and ethnicity.  How more obvious could it be that our conflicts are not ethnic in origin?  How more obviously could our conflicts be cultural — and ideological?

The one state final solution Bisharat so appealingly advocates is a blueprint for the cultural genocide of Israel — and only of Israel.  Because every nation may — at times must — defend its culture.  Yet Bisharat does not suggest rescuing Germany from German culture.  Or Quebec from French-Canadian culture.  Or the entire Mid-East from Islamic culture.  Bisharat only seeks to rescue Israel from being too Jewish.

Worse, the one state final solution Bisharat advocates is also a blueprint for physical genocide.  Because the conflicts are culturally ideological.  Because the cultural conflicts are so severe — Islamist societies routinely vow to genocide Israel.  Routinely.  Every Imam worth his salt does it.  When Ahmadinejad — at his own official website — calls for Israel to get wiped from the map?  This does not make him stand out objectionably from his cultural background.  It only means he is an Imam worth his salt.

The Palestinian Authority is constituted on genociding Israel.  Hamas is chartered on genociding Israel.  So why the heck not have Palestinians and Israelis living together?  In the same tent, as it were?  Why not have those promising to commit genocide live together with those they promise to genocide?  What could possibly, what could conceivably even go wrong?

Bisharat’s one state final solution is too obvious a blueprint for Israel’s cultural and physical genocide.  In many quarters, that will increase his appeal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyUw-WfRR0w

Two years ago today Toronto’s York University was not peaceably closed for holidays. It was ruthlessly shut down. It was besieged by what became the longest strike at any English-speaking university — ever.

The aftermath? Nothing but damage. Not merely in terms of economics. Not only to the reputation and quality of education at York University. Certainly not least to students surviving the strike. Yet more-so, by real poetic justice, crushing burdens have flattened the instigating Local utterly.

Legislated back to work by Ontario’s government, administrated by CUPE National — Local 3903 has been cuffed by governing authority and grounded by our parent union. Have we 3903s learned anything, though? Of course not.

As far as we 3903s are concerned, administration — trusteeship — by CUPE National is entirely illegitimate. It but serves to eliminate democracy from our Local. That’s why, in our letter of opposition addressed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, while admitting that we must find ways to resolve our internal differences, we declared that,

Trusteeship has done nothing to move us in this direction. Members are eager to finally begin this important process, but we cannot do it until we regain democratic control of our local… Only democratic local control of the union will allow us to move forward in rebuilding our local.

Too ironically, the Ontario Labour Board appears to have totally tumbled for it. The October 28 Decision confirms Local democracy as perhaps the Board’s preeminent concern:

.. individuals.. have raised concerns about.. what some of them have referred to as an erosion of local democracy… Most strikingly in my view, neither the.. letter.. nor the.. response filed by CUPE set out any timetable or plan proposed for the resumption of local self-government through the holding of elections.

Most strikingly, indeed. As if the erosion of our Local democracy were due to CUPE’s failing to timetable fair elections — rather than how the very individuals bemoaning the erosion long since eradicated anything remotely democratic within our Local.

In fact, the precise opposite is true. Quite apart from whatever financial wrongdoing, one of the primary reasons for administration has been to address and resolve ongoing harassment and intimidation in Local 3903. Unless and until our Local culture of harassment and intimidation can be resolved, there is no point holding democratic elections. No elections in Local 3903 can be fair and democratic while dissent — our so-called dissident voices — is so viciously silenced.

CUPE National submitted information to the Board alleging that examples of harassment and intimidation are numerous:

Members and (then) Executive Officers of the local being “stared down” at General Membership Meetings while voting; their cars being surrounded after General Membership Meetings; coupled with verbal abuse, verbal threats; and, in one instance, physical assault at a General Membership Meeting.

But CUPE National doesn’t know the half of it. Not the tenth of it. Nobody that hasn’t experienced the viciousness, that hasn’t been systematically targeted can really know. And CUPE National can have no information from those that have been most viciously silenced. From those 3903s too terrified ever to come forward at meetings — or come out and testify to CUPE National.

CUPE Nationals don’t really know. Board members cannot begin to know. That’s why the Board is not to blame for being duped. For failing to recognize the individuals bemoaning erosion of democracy are just those who eradicated our Local democracy in the first place. For failing to realize the impossibility of fair democratic 3903 elections while our Local culture of harassment and intimidation so proudly and brazenly persists — as it once again will the first moment after administration ceases.

The Board cannot be blamed for failing to appreciate how fervidly, how zealously we 3903s harass and intimidate our own. Nor what undemocratic methods are entailed by our out-of-control ideology — as, for instance, Tyler Shipley so lucidly explained in his “Demanding the Impossible: Struggles for the Future of Post-Secondary Education” (2009). Nor, indeed, the totalitarian orgies we refer to as General Membership Meetings. As I described in “How Undemocratic is CUPE 3903 — The Story Of Val” (2010).

However ironic the OLRB enabling our Local delinquency may seem — it doesn’t even matter. Not really. Because whether administration ends several months sooner or later can make no real difference. End it must. And when it does — watch out. Government cannot stop us. CUPE National cannot control us. When we next strike out it won’t just be our Local democracy getting victimized.

Remember how you, your kids and your grand-kids became indentured? When countless trillion deficit taxpayer dollars got wasted by government bailing out the biggest banks and largest corporations — just because they were too big to fail? You bought it, didn’t you? You fell for it hook, crap-line and national sinker. After George and Barack both agreed that’s how it had to be, who were you to even doubt it?

You never stopped to wonder what sense bailing out the dumbest, most gargantuan economic dinosaurs made. You never stopped to think that if god had bailed out the original dinosaurs — then humans wouldn’t even exist.

Don’t feel bad, though. Like, not personally, anyhow. Because the way George and Barack, together, agreed on wasting America’s future? It meant most everyone reckoned it had to be true. That America’s future had to get wasted.

And they need you to keep believing it. They totally fear you might blame how there can be no economic recovery on the government. That’s why, every few days there’s yet another lugubrious economist on State Television — a.k.a C.N.N. — haranguing it’s government’s job to bail out the economy in bad times and then, in good times, responsibly restore balanced budgets and pay off resulting deficits.

But what they invariably neglect to say? What they’d rather you didn’t know, never realized and couldn’t find out?  What’s so glaringly hidden in plainest sight for all to see?  It’s how utterly incapable of bailing out and driving the economy government actually is. How many dollars government wastes for each one it taxes. How inconsistent economic responsibility is with what government is about in the first place.

There’s fundamental axiomatic reasons government must have the last word in economic irresponsibility. Because the word for economic irresponsibility is monopoly — and government has complete monopoly to compel by force. Because government is not subject to economic constraint. Because it cannot be held to economic account. Because it is bankrupting and indenturing America into third-world nation status.

Of course the trillions government spent on stimulating the economy have been squandered. Of course the bailouts mean that the economic dinosaurs responsible for collapsing our markets have been inured to all economic consequence. Yet still, you continue to believe the government had to do something. Right?

Right. But think for a moment. We all hate big banks and corporations. As we should. So how come we didn’t let them fail? How come we bailed them out ahead of our own kids? The government could have insured to bail out every single affected individual — at a fraction of the cost — without safeguarding those stampeding economic dinosaurs trampling us into socio-economic and geo-political oblivion. It should have.

Sanity and free markets were saying, “Let ‘em fall, for cripes sakes. Those rampaging dinosaurs aren’t economically fit to survive.” But instead? Government kept screeching how big they were.  And just because government kept screeching so loud?  Everyone figured government was terrified for we the people.  Nobody stopped to ask if maybe government was terrified only for itself.  Nobody reminded how deep government and saurian banks and corporations were into each other.  So deep, there was no telling where one began and the others ended.  Nobody shouted out how government and saurian banks and corporations were all in a putrid swamp of self-interest together.

Finally?  Completing the farce of Americas historic tragedy?  We’re supposed to walk — or crawl — away blaming inadequate regulations.  Demanding government get more involved — not less.  Insisting government and saurian banks and corporations get even deeper into each other.  Whereas what we really had to realize was the precise contrary.  Separation of government from free markets is at least as crucial as separation of church from state.

That’s government for ya. Forcing you to bail out saurian banks and corporations ahead of your own kids. With the very economic lives of your own kids.

Good thing the original dinosaurs were extinct already. Otherwise the Obama Administration would have bailed them out too.

Yeah. Sure there would have been trouble if economic dinosaurs had been allowed to collapse. Nothing so large can fall without crushing. But if only government had bailed individuals instead of banks and corporations? If the market had been allowed to function without public interference? It would have been painful — but no exponential, potentially infinite deficit compounding of trouble. It would have led to market evolution — instead of these days of zombie dinosaurs. There would have been unimaginable opportunities for more responsible, fit economic life.

Instead? More deficit spending! More debt! Print more money! Do I hear 10 trillion? Do I hear 15 trillion? Come on, people — indenture them great-grandkids! There’s nothing left to lose…  What?  No future left to give, either?  Alright, then.  Going once, going twice — sold! For countless trillion useless government deficit waste. To the gentleman that’s finally succeeded spreading America’s wealth to the vanishing point.

Barack Obama really wants us to believe there can be a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.  That Israelis and Palestinians can live — if not together — then at least peaceably and neighbourly. Obama honestly wishes everyone could believe it. “This time will be different,” he told the U.N. General Assembly.  And while everyone can appreciate how politically critical brokering a two-state solution is to world peace — and to Obama’s foundering appeal at home — there’s no sense even remotely believing Obama can pull it off.

Wouldn’t it be just crazy expecting any different outcome when nothing fundamental has changed? When Palestinians continue to be either quietly constituted or loudly and proudly chartered on genociding Israel? When Israelis won’t stop settling where Palestinians hope to establish their own sovereignty?

Besides the issues on the table.  Above the bloodshed on the ground.  Beyond the lies and genocidal hatred throughout the air in the Middle East.   There is one brute incontrovertible geographic fact placing the two-state solution out of reaching.  For while Palestinians continue lamenting how Israeli settlements built on land they want for a state will deny them a viable and contiguous country, the brute geographic fact remains that even should every Israeli settlement be dismantled overnight.  Or even if Israel should trade away thrice the land area it has settled.  There could still be no contiguous country for Palestinians.  Not if Israel itself is to remain contiguous.

Regardless all else.  Should Gaza and the West Bank be contiguously connected — then Israel must become divided and itself cease to exist contiguously.  Whereas if Israel continues to exist contiguously — then Gaza and the West Bank cannot be contiguously connected.

Regardless all else.  That one brute geographic fact alone means this time can be no different.  Not in the twilight of Obama’s speech to the 65th United Nations General Assembly.  Yet President Obama could have begun to make a difference.  Not with the speech he made, though.  Only with a truer, more relevant, far stronger speech.  A speech to have made Ronald Reagan proud — not Jimmy Carter.

There must be a country for every nation.  Distinct societies and peoples must possess territorial integrity in order to secure freedom, autonomy, sovereignty and independence.

Otherwise, lacking essential territorial integrity to secure freedom, autonomy, sovereignty and independence, distinct societies and peoples become trampled by endless risk of genocide.   Not only physical genocide.  Also deliberate cultural genocide — as seen not only throughout the former Soviet Union.  As we see right now not only in Tibet.  That’s just how we humans do onto one another when our cultures get clashing.  Hell on earth.  That’s what human history totally is.  Our record how genocidal we get when clashing cultures.

The Palestinian nation must have a country.  Must be enabled to secure freedom, autonomy, sovereignty and independence.  It could not matter less whether Palestinians used to be Egyptians or Jordanians prior to 1967.  They are Palestinians today.  They must have a real country today.  A viable country.  A contiguous country.  A country to be proud of.  A country Palestinians will proudly work to build instead of always looking to destroy someone else’s.

It is no solution to carve one marginally viable country into two countries that are not.  Two countries bound to one another like dogs scrapping over one morsel insufficient for survival.  The country of Palestine should be larger than Israel — not yet smaller and less viable.  That’s why the solution has got to be regional.  That’s why everyone — not just Israel — has got to chip in.  Egypt can contribute a little from the northern Sinai.  Jordan can contribute a little from the east bank.  Syria can contribute that Shebaa Farm.

Palestine must be a viable, contiguous country.  It should be larger than Israel.  From Gaza eastward through the Sinai.  Across the Gulf.  Northward through the east bank and West Bank both.  All the way to that Shebaa Farm.  With ports opening in the Gulf and on the Mediterranean.  Both.

Why not?  These would only be territorial crumbs.  Territorial crumbs which, together, would add up to a viable, contiguous Palestine.  To a dignified future for Palestinians.  To a genuine prayer for world peace.  And only President Obama could begin to make it happen.  Were he only willing and able to use stronger language.  Words like these:

Come on, Muslim brothers.  Contribute.  Just some crumbs from your laden territorial tables.  The days of the Palestinian people foddering your cannons against Israel are over.  You threatened Palestinians to leave, to get out of your way when you came shooting to genocide Israel in 1948.  Yet Israel still remains.  You promised Palestinians they’d return to feasting on the corpse of Israel.  And not only haven’t you delivered to this day and age — you continue burying the Palestinian people, heaping perpetual shame on them as refugees.  As if Israel still standing were their fault instead of yours.  But it was your threats and broken promises, Muslim brothers, which broke and scattered Palestinians from their homes.  It is your duty, Muslim brothers, to contribute making the Palestinian people whole.

Contribute, Muslim brothers.  Don’t shrug off every responsibility onto Israel — there must be more honour.  Give up dreaming of genocide already.  You’ve been trying for 60 years.  Wake up.  If god were willing, you would long since have succeeded.  Help make the future better, please.  Not always worse.  Come on.  How hard can it be? Any future would be better.

After the competing rallies organized by Glenn Beck and Al Sharpton earlier today, one friend publicly asked: Was Martin Luther King a conservative? And personally? No, I don’t think he was. Then again? I also don’t think he was a progressive radical, either.  This is a partisan fight to claim the legacy. And, damn it, both sides are wrong to do that.

Martin Luther King was more into personal responsibility than most anybody today. And, yes, he was surrounded by radical elements — but he also sought to resist more divisive polemics. His brand of social justice was firmly grounded in principles of equality under the law — not special entitlements under the law.

Appearing on CNN, Al Sharpton was asked to comment on Glenn Beck’s rally.  And Mr. Sharpton sought to dismiss the competing rally by saying Glenn Beck gave a good motivational speech — that had nothing to do with civil rights. Ok, Mr. Sharpton, fair enough. But, look, that shoe fits your feet just as well.

What’s Sharpton’s first premise literally every time he alleges civil rights inequities? That’s right — income distribution disparity. How African American and Latino American incomes lag behind pink European American incomes. Which, to Sharpton, has got to mean the discrimination conspiracy is alive and well.

But wait just a sec. Asian Americans actually make more money than pink European Americans. So, by Sharpton’s logic? There must be discrimination against pink Americans relative to Asian Americans. Asian Americans are the most privileged. Everything is their fault.

See where this goes? It’s nothing Bill Cosby hasn’t said. Concluding discrimination from income disparities alone isn’t a civil rights argument. It’s just more whining.

So, yeah. Sharpton’s right that Beck’s just giving motivational speeches and failing to address civil rights. But what Sharpton isn’t telling is that he himself just keeps on whining — the opposite of motivational speaking — and equally fails to address civil rights issues.

Neither Beck nor Sharpton together can fill the King’s shoes.  Neither can walk one mile in those shoes.  And it’s no wonder both try — and fail — to claim the King’s legacy. Because nobody today has his courage, his character, his moral fibre. They try to claim his legacy for their own partisan profit — but, thank god almighty, they cannot. Because Martin Luther King was one of a kind. Because Martin Luther King stood far above the ideological divisions hobbling smaller men like Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck.

Many Americans now believe Barack Hussein Obama to be Muslim.  Yet most Americans simply do not know if Obama is secretly Muslim.  They cannot know.  And that’s what sounds to be ringing the greatest alarms.

CNN pundits, for instance, breathily extol religious freedom as an American sacrament.  Every next breath, though, they bemoan how much campaigning — so-called educating — will be required to persuade Americans that Obama is no secret Muslim.  From one breath to the next — totally oblivious to their superlative hypocrisy.  Yes, it’s fine being Muslim in America.  But no way should anyone ever think Barack Obama actually is Muslim.  God forbid anyone even think Obama isn’t Christian.

Not in my back yard.  Not with my daughter.  Not my elected President.

It isn’t mere hypocrisy.  It’s hillarity.  As when the White House declared Obama must be Christian – since he prays twice daily.  That’s right — only twice.  Not five times.

But of course everyone already knows all about constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom.  Even on CNN — surely that can’t be news.  Not in this century.  So what, really, is the issue?

Actually, there would not have been any issue.  The subject would never have come up if only Obama had not been heard to gratuitously endorse the Ground Zero mosque.  Americans did not know Obama’s religion — and would have been perfectly content to continue neither knowing nor much caring.  Why should Americans have given a first, nevermind second thought to Obama’s religion?  Obama was elected President — not Pope.  Not Ayatollah.  There would have been no issue or subject to debate.

But Obama was heard to gratuitously endorse the Ground Zero mosque.  And even though Obama clarified the very next day he was not commenting on the wisdom but merely the right to place that mosque at Ground Zero?  Americans just can’t believe it.  Because if Obama was just generally pontificating America’s religious freedoms — to contrast, say, Iran’s — then why particularly, specifically only mention that Ground Zero mosque?

That’s what Americans cannot understand.  How and why the Ground Zero Mosque can figure as Obama’s example in chief when it comes to religious freedom.  Since no one can really believe that placing that mosque precisely at Ground Zero is about religious freedom.  Since everyone already knows how placing that mosque precisely at Ground Zero is about religious hatred.

Everyone knows it.  Not just because Hamas is backing it.  Or because there are no legitimately practicing Muslims requiring such a place of worship at Ground Zero – a commercial district.  Or because, as Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of Al-Arabiya TV wrote, legitimate Muslims would not even want there to be a mosque at Ground Zero – “.. it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime.”

We know placing that mosque precisely at Ground Zero is about religious hatred because we understand the difference between legitimate Muslims and Islamists.  Because we get the meaning of militant Islamic fundamentalism – Islamism – in the West.  And it wasn’t 9/11 that taught us the difference, either.  It’s a spurious and pernicious myth that we’ve become Islamophobic since 9/11.  In the tolerant West we do not mistake all Muslims for militant fundamentalists.  We know far better.

It was the days after 9/11.  Whenever we’ve seen the dancing in Middle-Eastern Islamist streets.  Seen it on T.V.  Seen it on Al-Jazeera and CNN.  The collective Islamist rejoicing.  And we even tried laughing it off – with the (non)Muhammad cartoons, for instance.  We tried laughing Islamism off as we would Christian fundamentalism.

There’s no laughing Islamist hatred off, though.  We get it.   In New York and in London.  In Madrid, Moscow and Mumbai.  In Africa, Asia, Europe, America and, of course, the Middle East.  Nobody laughs off Islamist hatred.  Everyone gets it.

Islam is a great religion of peace – increasingly hijacked by militant Islamic fundamentalists.  By Islamists.  And nobody can ignore how evil Islamists are.  Because, by this day and age, only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to righteously enslave women, terrorize every other culture there is and proudly declare their genocidal ambitions.

The Ground Zero mosque is not for legitimate Muslims.  Legitimate Muslims don’t want a mosque at Ground Zero.  Placing that mosque at Ground Zero is for the Islamists.  Because only at Ground Zero will that mosque become destination 1 for Islamists to come celebrate 9/11.  Only at Ground Zero can that mosque become Islamism’s holiest site.  Only at Ground Zero will that mosque stand legacy to Islamist supremacy.

That’s the real reason Obama’s religious beliefs have become such an issue.  Because after endorsing placing that mosque at Ground Zero as if doing so were about religious freedom – rather than religious hatred?  We can no longer conceive what Obama was thinking.

Why would Obama support placing that mosque at Ground Zero?  There’s no issue whether Obama be Muslim or Christian.  The real issue is how Obama really feels about every Islamist cause that Ground Zero mosque will so immaculately serve.

Perhaps, just maybe, Democratic pundits and mainstream media commentators should cease blaming anti-Islamic sentiments for the ire Obama has roused.  Because our ire is anti-Islamist — not anti-Islamic.  Because most people can tell the difference.  Because, among those that cannot, pundits and commentators are themselves fanning Islamophobic flames.

Instead of blaming anti-Islamic sentiments and educating how truly Christian Obama is?  Why not reassure that Obama can harbor no Islamist sympathies?  That Obama fully understands how Islamism contradicts everything America stands for – and how Islamist sympathy can mean nothing but enmity for freedom and democracy?

Iran’s Ahmadinejad has often stated that the “fuss” over Iran’s nuclear program is only a “political pretext” and is an indication of Westerners’ double standards.

The Iranian leader certainly seems to score on that point.  Because everyone hates double standards.  Everyone detests unfairness.  And when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, the double standard does seem glaringly unfair.

If there’s some problem with potential Iranian nukes — then there must equally be a problem with, for instances, Indian, Pakistani, North Korean and Israeli nukes.  And, just the same, if there’s no great problem with Indian, Pakistani, North Korean and Israeli nukes – then there should be no greater problem with Iranian nukes either.  Not unless there is something glaringly different about Iran’s potential nukes to justify how internationally singled out Iran is.

That, precisely, is what our survey was designed to address.  Whether there’s any perceived difference between nuclear weapons of different nationalities.  And while the survey question was deceptively simple – Which nukes frighten you most? – the response turned out surprisingly edifying.

In last place, the fewest positive responses – 1% each – indicated fear of either Israeli nuclear weapons or no fear of nuclear weapons whatsoever.  Thus, it was certainly encouraging to find the lunatic Dr. Strangelove fringe – Nukes don’t scare me.  Bring them – dead last.  How to account, however, for the lack of fear concerning Israeli nuclear aggression?  Particularly given the ongoing condemnation of Israel as a ruthless military warmonger?

It appears that denouncing Israel as a military warmonger entails no genuine fears as such.  To the contrary.  Regardless whether fully supporting or denouncing Israel in the most extreme possible terms – either way, the tacit underlying consensus seems to be that there is nothing to fear.  Despite overwhelming discord concerning Israeli aggression, all seem to in fact agree that Israel always only fights in self-defense.

Second least frightening were American and European nukes – tied with 2% positive response each.  These results were likely confounded by responses originating mostly from North America and Europe – in the English language.  Nevertheless, in light of arguments that only the U.S. has ever utilized nuclear weapons, it was surprising so little fear was expressed concerning prospects of American nuclear aggression.  Perhaps the counter-argument has become more credible that other powers, under identical circumstances, would not have exercised restraint remotely similar to the U.S.

What if, in the context of a world-war, Germany had first produced and possessed nuclear weapons?  What if Japan had first produced nuclear weapons?  What if only the Soviet Union had possessed nuclear weapons?  There’s not much doubting what devastation and totalitarian domination would have ensued.  Thus, even though dispute persists whether American nuclear weapons ought never have been used under any circumstances – yet consensus reflects perception of American nuclear aggression as almost least frightening.

Third least frightening were Chinese and Indian nukes – tied with 3% positive response each.  No surprise.  Whatever unease concerning India and China emerging as economic super-powers, there seems little to fear.  No indication Chinese or Indian nuclear weapons could serve military aggression instead of defense and deterrence.

Russian nukes received only 4% positive response.  Suggesting that very few individuals lose sleep due to fearing Russian nuclear aggression.  And while this isn’t precisely surprising, it certainly is startling to note how diametrically perception of Russian aggression has altered since the Cold War.

The grim and sober view that nuclear weapons are unacceptable regardless what nationality – All nukes are totally & equally frightening – received 7% positive response.

North Korean nukes were considered third most frightening – with 8% positive response.  Is this relatively moderate result surprising – given the belligerent language, sabre-rattling, military aggression and outright nuclear threats issuing from North Korea?  Perhaps not.  However threatening, reiterating Cold War rhetoric and ideology may no longer seem relevant.  Perhaps North Korea does not get taken seriously enough.

Second most frightening were Pakistani nukes – with 10% positive response.  Rather startling – since Pakistan is putatively allied with the United States.  However, the relatively elevated level of fear may not be unreasonable when taking into account how ambiguous Pakistan’s national identity is.

Is Pakistan a free and democratic society?  Is it a military dictatorship – in order, like so many other Islamic nations, to keep Islamism at bay?  Or is Pakistan inevitably destined to become an Islamist society?  Few prospects can be more frightening than nuclear weapons falling under Taliban’s Islamist control.

Last, and most frightening by far – more than all others combined with 62% positive response – were Iranian nukes.  Making it difficult to account so much dread while Iran is not known yet to possess nuclear weapons.  As if the mere thought of a nuclear-armed Iran were more terrifying than all other nations’ real nuclear arsenals combined.  Why would that be?

Much has been made by mainstream media concerning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s alarming fundamentalism.  Whether he is paving ways for the 12^th Imam – or sees in himself the living embodiment of that apocalyptic, messianic figure.  How he has called for Israel to get wiped from the map.  And thus the question persists whether Ahmadinejad could prove so unhinged as to execute nuclear first strikes.

Perhaps that’s the completely wrong question, though.  Since it’s somewhat puerile to think Iranian nuclear aggression could hinge on Ahmadinejad’s private frame of mind.

More likely, most individuals feel terrified at the thought of Iranian nuclear weapons because they have some understanding or intuition how devastating irreconcileable ideological differences always become.  Irreconcileable ideological differences not just between individuals – but far more-so between cultures.

The real fear factor is not Ahmadinejad-specific.  Rather, it may follow from awareness how commonplace the call for genocide is in Islamist societies.  Indeed, there is one Islamist society quietly constituted on genociding Israel.  Another Islamist society loudly and proudly charters itself on genociding Israel.  It seems as if every Islamist leader and imam worth his salt must call for the genocide of Israel.

There is nothing uniquely special about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Quite the opposite.  He speaks rather well for Islamist culture.  He is an imam worth his salt.

Terrifying clashes of cultural ideology have been historically ongoing, of course.  But in nuclear terms, the most terrifying ideological clashing used to be during the Cold War.  That protracted era during which the survival of humanity and all life on earth hung by the thinnest fraying thread.  And not just in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis.  Yet nothing before or since can remotely compare in extremity to Islamist ideologies of genocidal hatred.  Hence, when nuclear weapons are added to that mix?  When it comes to Islamist nukes?  No wonder more people are terrified.

There may seem to be a glaring nuclear double standard.  In reality, however, the very idea of Islamist nukes becomes unthinkable.  For although Islam is a great religion of peace?  The more Islam gets hijacked by militant Islamic fundamentalists – Islamists – the more terrifying the idea of Islamist nukes becomes.  And while the worst Islamist terror may target Israel – by no means do Islamist societies restrict themselves from other targets.

That’s why even more moderate Muslim nations cannot imagine a nuclear Iran.  That’s why Yousef al-Otaiba, the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates, bluntly said: “A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster – but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster.”  Because Iran has become the leading Islamist society.  Because only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to righteously enslave women, attack and terrorize every other culture there is – while proudly hailing genocidal ambitions.

There is no question whether, if allowed in the first place, Islamist nukes might be used.  The question is how conceivably could Islamist nukes not be used – with genocidal intent sanctified by god?

Several weeks ago a friend challenged me to explain the difference between left and right-wing ideologies.

“Can you do it?” challenged friend.  “Moreso, can you do it fairly and without the usual right and left stereotypes and with the history of where these ideological groupings come from?”

Sure.  Why not.  There’s no resolving the esoteric spectra of political ideology – Marxism, communism, socialism, liberalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and fascism, to name just a few – if we can’t even tell left from right.  If we can’t say why we keep leaning either way.

Let’s put aside the history of our political divisions, though.  History can’t explain why people keep slanting left or angling right – while knowing next to nothing about history.  In fact?  It almost seems like people can’t really help their own political inclinations.

That’s what research has shown.  When it comes to left or right political leaning, people don’t just forget their history.  They disdain plain facts and otherwise common sense.  Both those leaning left and those leaning right will consistently rely on the identical facts when justifying how they lean.  Which can only suggest complete disregard for facts.  For how consistency gets sacrificed when it comes to political leaning.

Yet more astonishing has been research showing significant, detectable brain differences between people leaning politically left and right.  Research so remarkable that mainstream media headlines blared: “Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain”.

Could significant brain-differences mean that political inclination is inborn?  Genetically hard-wired?

Better not get carried away with that joke.  Finding brain differences doesn’t mean that political inclination is hard-wired.  That it isn’t learned.  Since learning too, just as well, may account for brain differences.  Since we know that learning can and does correspond with presumably structuring events in the brain.  Since learning is precisely not inborn or hard-wired.  Learning is everything we acquire – albeit not only – by experience.

For the most simplistic analogy, it may be possible to significantly distinguish computers by their operating systems.  Would we then conclude operating systems are hard-wired?  Of course not.  Operating systems are precisely not hard-wired.

What surprises is not that learning or knowing can correspond with variance in people’s brains.  Rather, it is how deeply fundamental our political leanings must therefore be.  How persistent, reliable and robust a division political leaning must constitute.  In order to correspond with real, significant brain differences, leaning left or right politically must divide us – how we learn, how we know — fundamentally.

It would not be surprising to find significant brain differences between, for instance, people who distinguish right from wrong – and people who do not.  But we would not expect significant brain differences between people who think it’s right to vote for Barak Obama – and people who think it’s wrong to vote for Obama.  That’s what’s surprising.  How much deeper than just voting choices our political inclinations must go.  How political inclination now seems more like being able to tell right from wrong.  In terms of the prior analogy, political leaning isn’t just elective software.  How we lean seems more like a module of our operating system.

Taking a minute to think about it, though?  There should be no surprise.  Because, in Western societies, political inclination is predicated on our understanding of fairness – and because fairness has replaced god when it comes to telling political right from wrong.

Right and wrong used to be functions of god-given truths.  But at least since the American and French revolutions – if not since yet earlier during Western Enlightenment – we have lost every faith in the truths god gave.  And absent definitive, pre-ordained, absolute truths to sanctify each social injustice? The alternative has become culturally ingrained in Western societies that humanitarian fairness must decide public morality.

Now, in the West, fairness is the needle in our public morality compass.  Fairness has become the vane of political legitimacy.  On this much, in the West, we can agree.  We have got to be fair.

But fundamental and imperative as fairness has become?  We totally can’t agree on what it means.  When it comes to our understanding of fairness we are utterly divided.

On one hand, there is the belief that fairness must mean relative parity.  Such that, whenever observing material non-parity, we have to conclude non-fairness.  Any inequality, in itself, must therefore constitute evidence of discrimination, of oppression, of exploitation – of prevailing social injustice.

On the other hand, there is the belief that fairness must mean not only relative parity – but must also reflect relative merit and virtue.  Such that we cannot conclude non-fairness from material non-parity alone.  Since inequalities could always stem from differences in relative merit – rather than any social injustice prevailing.

The more we believe material non-parity entails injustice – the farther left we have to lean politically.  The more we believe material non-parity does not entail injustice – the farther right we have to lean politically.

And when we lean too far – either way?  That’s when our ideals of fairness turn ideological.  Because it is false, absurd and harmful to believe merit has either nothing or absolutely everything to do with people’s material circumstances. Sometimes people can shape their material circumstances – whereas, at other times, circumstances can overwhelm anyone.

It comes down to this.  Western ideals of fairness are most admirable.  Absent such ideals – had we kept faith with god-given truths or just relied on might determining our relative rights – there could never have evolved even partly free and democratic Western societies.  But Western ideologies of fairness are turning uniquely absurd – and damaging.

Right-wing brains believing only merit can truly determine what’s fair ought to remember that no society can thrive which turns its back on those most overwhelmed by circumstance through no fault of their own.  Whereas left-wing brains believing merit has no bearing whatever on fairness had better remember that societies collapse and fall when turning blind eyes to how enduringly only human self-determination and free-enterprise can improve, enhance, augment and ultimately transcend every possible circumstance.  That’s right – ultimately transcend.  Because circumstance and human conditions hinge not only on potentially alienable means of production – but yet more so on potentially inalienable productions of meaning.  Because absent comprehensive appreciation for human production of meaning – there can be no real conception of human productivity.

Ideologies of fairness are absurd artifacts produced by genuine cultural ideals of fairness.  Ideals of fairness but for which there could never have emerged even partly free and democratic Western societies.  And our most extreme ideologies of fairness are just as uniquely Western.

Could left and right-wing brains have preceded our ideals and expectations of public fairness?  Could there have been left and right-wing brains prior to left and right political alternatives even existing?  Even now, can there be left and right-wing brains in the totalitarian Middle East or North Korea?  Of course not.   There can be no meaningful left or right political alternatives in totalitarian societies.  No political alternative can have coherent totalitarian meaning.  Since the meaning of totalitarian is to deny all alternatives.

Our ideals of fairness are at the cultural roots of relatively free and democratic Western societies.  Yet our ideologies of fairness – ideologies at the expense of real fairness – like rot, are beginning to erode Western societies from inside out.  Can Western societies recover – or will left and right political ideologies continue dividing us until we can no longer work and live together?

That’s the real question the survey was meant to address.  Not whether Bush or Obama hatred has been worst – responses to which, either way, likely reflect only prevailing ideological devotions.  Rather, whether any significant proportion of respondents might indicate some rejection of ideology by choosing the third option:  “Ideologues left and right are all a pestilence on democracy.” Unfortunately, to date, the third option accounted for merely 8% of responses.  Meanwhile, the first two – ideologically divisive – options accounted for over 85% of responses.

By way of bad news, these numbers shout for themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn3jTT0afZk

Although the Paintball Raid may have been Israel’s most epic fiasco of failure?  Mainstream media coverage has been remarkable.  Uncharacteristic.  Almost evenly handed.  Even making non-hostile space for occasional Israeli views.  As if Israeli perspective could conceivably be legitimate.

Not the case for all media, of course.  Islamist media from Al Jazeera to electronicintifada keep ululating the “flotilla massacre”.  Radical Western media – the left’s version of FoxNews – continue insinuating it was cold bloody murder.  Headlining how Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range.  Denouncing how this information “undermines Israel’s insistence that its soldiers opened fire only in self defence and in response to attacks by the activists.”

But more respectable mainstream media?  Not only are terms like “massacre” absent from respectable headlines.  There’s no insinuations of murder, even.  Could it be more respectable media are not so ideologically blinkered?  Not too blinkered to conceive how precisely close-range shooting does not undermine Israeli accounts?  How close-range shooting instead corroborates Israeli accounts?

Just maybe.  Could be.  Yet nonetheless surprising – due if only to sheer, spectacular magnitude of the Paintball Raid fiasco.  Even without ululating, there should have been far more denouncing in mainstream media.

There should have been.  And the reason there wasn’t isn’t funny.  It’s really ironic.  Because despite every magnitude of the fiasco itself.  Despite tragic loss of living.  In the sense most deeply, most viscerally imprinting worldwide audiences, Israeli soldiers have become transformed by video footage into victims of the so-called “peace activists”.

For the radical and Islamist audience?  Footage of Israeli soldiers beaten like drums could lead to great satisfaction – possibly to outright dancing.  Dancing for joy in the arab street – as after 9/11.  But it’s just horrifying for the mainstream audience – and nothing but hindrance for mainstream media.

How can mainstream media express proper outrage – when the mainstream audience shudders in horror?  While the mainstream audience cringes from footage of Israeli soldiers getting rabidly lynched by peace activists?  It cannot.  All mainstream media can do is over-emphasize how calamitous the consequences of the event are.  But when it comes to denouncing the tragic fiasco event itself, though?  Mainstream media outrage got severely muzzled.

It has to rankle.  It has got to chafe.  Hence why the Associated Press, in conjunction with the Foreign Press Association, bitterly headlined: Israel’s use of ‘captured’ video draws criticism.

Except the criticism didn’t qualify as such.  Demanding Israel stop releasing footage captured from Mavi Marmara passengers – yet acknowledging getting told by an Israeli army spokeswoman that the footage wasn’t captured.  “She said no material was confiscated. She said it was found on the vessel after activists were cleared off by the army.”

There was no criticism.  Only bleating in lieu of barking from mainstream media.  Bleating due to having been so thoroughly muzzled, bleating that anyone can now see that footage.  Footage not mainstream media nor PallyWood Studios nor even Mavi Marmara activists have had opportunity to begin editing.  Footage not only failing to properly stage Israeli soldiers as vicious sub-humans but rather, instead, totally revealing the precise opposite.

Who would have thought?  Who could have foreseen?  Not only distant footage showing Israeli soldiers restraining from shooting while homicidally attacked.  Brutally beaten, knifed, clubbed, thrown from on-high.  Not only distant footage.  Also close, personal, meticulous footage from the very deck of the Mavi Marmara.  Footage intimately framing Turkish peace activists’ sustained assault on the Israeli boat.  With grenade, with metal poles, with chains, with water-cannons.  And most wrenching?  How long Israeli soldiers did not shoot.  The way they just took that brutality.  How they restrained themselves.  How instead of shooting they huddled fearing for their lives.

When it comes to soldiering?  Nothing can be more admirable than reasonable restraint.  But restraining like that?  Restraint that extreme?  Huddling like baby seals?  Like lambs to that Islamist slaughter?  Pathetic.

This is the great irony of the tragic Paintball Raid fiasco.  How viscerally the global audience will remember it.  Whether in secret joy, with overt relish or, in the mainstream, with some glimmering understanding.  Understanding what it’s like to be an Israeli soldier.

Thus, regardless whether Israeli soldiers were legally self-defending in those international waters.  Even though Turkey has but recently enrolled into the brotherhood of Islamist societies.  Despite how Turkish passengers continue to be called peace activists.  Nevertheless.  There has been a pain-staked vision what Islamism entails for Israel on every side.  And aside from how pretty it isn’t?  It may begin exposing mainstream reporting bias.  What we in the mainstream audience have been taking as face values.

For example?  Just for one instance?  When Reuters runs headlines like “Angry Turkish PM tells Israel ‘thou shalt not kill’”?  As if the Turkish PM weren’t expressing more lunatic hatred?  Now we can start putting it together.  How it doesn’t add up.  Because when Erdogan’s anger gets juxtaposed with Israeli soldiers beset as they were by Turk Islamists?  When Israeli soldiers came inches from losing their lives prior to commencing shooting?  It can only mean Erdogan is utterly enraged by Israelis defending their lives.

In the figurative light and the literal darkness of Mavi Marmara footage?  We start comprehending where Islamists really come from.  And when we do comprehend where that place of absolute hatred is?  Then mainstream media can’t keep fooling.  Then Islamist language turns transparent.  Then Islamists might as well say what they really mean.  Express that Islamist outrage, anger, hatred.  Get it off their chests knowing that we in the mainstream do indeed, finally, understand.

“How dare jews defend their lives.”

Wouldn’t it be simpler?  Wouldn’t that be clear?

There’s no doubting what a disaster the Paintball Raid has been.  But when it comes to Islamists and Israelis?  It has been a revelation.  One that Islamists, radicals and even mainstream media can only hope we’ll soon forget.  A revelation they will do their utmost to distract us from.  To ensure we do forget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

They boarded the Mavi Marmara with paintball guns and proceeded to get lynched.

If that sounds absurd?  That’s because it so totally is.  But there’s no laughter.  Israel supporters are particularly shamed and sickened.  And any that aren’t had damn well ought to be.

By now most anyone has likely seen footage how IDF soldiers were attacked aboard the maritime vessel Mavi Marmara.  How literally the first few got lynched.  So, no, it was no “massacre”– like Mahmoud Abbas or Recep Tayyip Erdogan, respectively, lamented and raged.  Nor was it “murder.. without.. justification” like Turkey’s  Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu condemned.

It was an absurd fiasco gone tragically wrong.  That’s why international condemnation persists legitimately – and entirely apart from the typical hysteria of Islamists and their radical-left allies.

Israel supporters, however, are not fazed by international condemnation.  They are used to it.  They expect no less.  And having seen all that Israeli footage on CNN, they understand what Dan Carmon told the Security Council was the obvious, plain truth.

Of course the Gaza convoy flotilla was out to siege-break by pretending delivering humanitarian relief.  No need to keep pointing out how superfluous convoy flotilla so-called aid was.  No need to repeat how, had the convoy flotilla mission really been humanitarian,

.. it would have accepted, weeks ago, during the planning stages, the offer by the Israeli authorities to transfer the aid, through to the port of Ashdod, to Gaza through the existing overland crossing, in accordance with established procedures.

And there’s certainly no burning need to quote spokesperson Greta Berlin saying, last week, that the convoy flotilla “mission is not about delivering Humanitarian supply, but rather about breaking the Israeli siege.”

Everyone either knows or ought to know by now.  There’s headlines sprouting all-over to that effect.  Like “New boats headed to Gaza to challenge blockade” and “Activists send new boat to challenge Gaza blockade”.  Not only doesn’t Greta Berlin keep this secret – it sounds like she blares it in whatever media orifice becomes available.

According to Greta Berlin, “..a cargo boat is already on the way to challenge Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.”  She vigorously contends that “this initiative is not going to stop.”  Because,

.. Israel will get some kind of common sense. They’re going to have to stop the blockade of Gaza, and one of the ways to do this is for us to continue to send the boats.

It isn’t international condemnation fazing, shaming, sickening Israel supporters.  It’s something else.  Something Sarah Palin, however eloquently, failed to appreciate. Something infinitely more important which, perhaps for the first time, is no longer true.

When Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israelis on ship acted in self defense?  It was a lie.  And while true that Israeli “soldiers had to defend themselves, defend their lives or they would have been killed,” it is not true that hostilities were commenced by assailants aboard the Mavi Marmara.  To the contrary.  Because the vessel was in international waters, hostilities commenced the first moment Israeli soldiers boarded.

In this absurd fiasco?  Israel cannot honestly be said to have acted in self defense.  That’s what fazes, even sickens Israel supporters.  Because always fighting only in self defense is the bedrock of Israel’s moral supremacy.  And while true facts of the paintball raid become known from Israeli footage penetrating through Islamist hyperboles of hysterical hatred.  While international condemnation subsides accordingly.  Even while the blemish in the bedrock of Israeli moral supremacy emerges as a chink – rather than fracture or fissure.  Still.  There can only be dismay whether this fiasco harbinges more absurd things to come.

How hard can it be for Israel to ensure always fighting only in self defense?  When Islamist societies — altogether or individually – can never cease shooting at Israel?  When Islamist societies keep calling for Israel’s destruction – and bragging how they’ll do it?  When one Islamist society is quietly constituted on genociding Israel?  When another Islamist society is loudly and proudly chartered on genociding Israel?

It shouldn’t be hard.  It should be easy as falling off logs.

Israel must return fire in self defense.  Israel must fortify walls designed to save lives in self defense.  But Israel cannot and must not use defensive walls to imprison against shooting in the first place.  Not in self defense.  Because collective imprisoning – even to stop genocide-boasting aggressors – is not defensive.  Collective imprisoning is offensive.

The Gaza embargo does not and cannot work.  It does not work practically to keep weapons out.  And it cannot work morally when collectively locking Gazans in.

How can Israel more fully separate from and fortify against Gaza – without locking Gazans in?  Only too obviously.  Gaza borders not only Israel – but also Egypt.  Therefore, Israel must more completely separate from Gaza – while encouraging Egypt to fully open the Rafah Crossing.

It is too obvious.  Just imagine there are two neighbours.  Imagine one neighbour claiming the other has stolen land, vowing to kill the land-thief — and shooting to kill.

Clearly there must be complete separation when neighbours keep shooting to kill.  Just as clearly, no neighbour can ever cage the other like an animal.  This is why there must be complete separation orders between Gaza and Israel.  This is why Gaza needs to stay entirely away from Israel.  Why Gaza needs to stay with her Egyptian relatives.

Galvanized by the paintball raid fiasco.  With the embargo failing on land, underground and in the sea.  With more tunnels dug, with more boats coming real soon.  The time has come for Egypt to open their crossing from Gaza – while Israel must prepare to close their crossings down.

The time is right now.  The gate of opportunity at Rafah is wide open.  Because Egypt opens Gaza border after Israel ship clash.  Because Egyptian security even tells Reuters that the border “..will remain open for an unlimited time.”  Gazans can cross as they please.

The less Gazans have to do with Israel?  The more they have to do with Egypt?  The more Egypt must administer to Gaza?  The better.  Why, finally, should Israel not trust in Egypt to eventually keep the Gaza peace?  So long as Gazans are chartered on destroying Israel – not Egypt – how can Egypt do any worse?  And no matter whatever else – can anyone even imagine Egypt resorting to paintball guns?  Like, ever?

It seems like the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) talks are about to collapse.  At least according to the bold Reuters headline declaring nuclear treaty talks on brink of failure.

How come?  Because, obviously, not everyone can agree what nuclear non-proliferation is meant to accomplish.  Egypt and even more-so Iran, for example, would rather not focus too much on NPT-signatory problem states.  Problem states such as North Korea and Iran.  Instead, Egypt and especially Iran would much rather focus on those nuclear-armed states that never signed NPT.  India, Pakistan and – presumptively nuclear-armed — Israel.

Except, of course, that India and Pakistan were not mentioned as problem states.  India and Pakistan were only mentioned as NPT non-signatories.  Far as Egypt and Iran appear at all concerned?  The only real problem is Israel.

And how can anyone particularly blame Iran?  Why should Iran not distract international focus and pressure from itself and onto Israel as the problem state?  Above and beyond Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Iran calling for Israel to get wiped off the map — is there not a matter of principle involved?  Is there not an issue of fundamental fairness?

Indeed.  If there’s some problem with Iranian nukes — then there must equally be a problem with Israeli nukes.  And, just the same, if there’s no problem with Israeli nukes – then there can’t be any problem with Iranian nukes either.  Like Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna, said: “”We will not compromise on principles.”

Good on you, Mr. Soltanieh.  Everyone hates double standards.  The international community and each of us personally should thank you for reminding that we must reject double standards.  Especially when it comes to the ultimate, most glaring double standard of all.

Right?  People keep saying how Israel has more nukes.  And whether false or true — does anyone even seem to care about Israeli nukes?  Hardly.  Yet mere suspicion Iraq had WMDs.  Mere anticipation when Iran will have a few nukes to throw around.  Whoa.  Nellie.  Just thinking about Islamist nukes gets the non-Islamist world up in arming.

How and why can there be such universal double standards?  Clearly.  Too obviously.  We can’t get morally worked up about Israel not participating in NPT.  Not after India was granted that waiver from NPT.  Due to insecurity, tensions and longstanding border disputes with China — including a border war in 1962. There can be no moral outrage when, in Israel’s case, the existential issues are so infinitely more grave.  When, in Israel’s case, what gets disputed by Islamist societies is not just one border — but how soon Israel must be wiped from the map entirely.

And yet far more importantly still.  We cannot get viscerally worked up about Israeli nukes.  We simply do not feel terrified should Israel have nukes.  Regardless how anyone hates jews — there is no looming urgency concerning Israeli nukes.  There is no genuine excitement.  There is no honest fear.  If only tacitly, the whole world knows Israel always fights only in self-defense.

But Islamist nukes?  Dude — don’t ever go there.  Because even though we hate to admit it?  Even though we try and pretend otherwise?  We can’t go on pretending when nukes are involved.

When nukes become involved?  Nobody can ignore what everyone already knows.  How only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions and terrorize every other culture there is.

There can be neither resting nor sleeping with possibilities of Islamist nukes.  For while we lose a little sleep worrying about North Korean nukes — we stand losing far more should Pakistani nukes fall into Taliban hands.  And nothing can ever strike us waking or sleepless like the very idea of Iranian nukes.

We do hate double standards.  But since Islamist societies can never stop attacking Israel?  Railing against Israel defending herself instead of just dying already?  Worrying about — presumptive — Israeli nukes?  Alright then — we must admit it.  There’s the ultimate, most glaring international double standard.

Totally justified.

The Ultimate Culture Clash totally had to switch web hosts.  Just because we kept getting I-framed at the extra-large hosting company we were with.  Fortunately, we found a host that actually implemented the entire move for us.  Better yet?  At our new host –  The U C C  loads very much faster.  Wow.  Talk about no pain – all gain.  Thank you, FusedNetwork.

And now there’s more in it for you – free @ The U C C.  Way more.

For one thing you can register to get your own (sub)page.  That’s right.  Your alias can appear under Clashing Authors.  Also?  Whenever there’s a good-quality post at your own page — we re-post it on the front page.  For real.  Your posts can feature as our articles.  And when your articles are featured?  Then you can broadcast your articles everywhere via the OnlyWire button.

Would you like to find out more — or request to register?  Contact us.

Rather not register?  No problem.  You can do all that even without registering.  Simply by creating a terrific FORUM post.  Then contact us to check your post out.  Then, when you receive our notice and see your post featured as a front page article – go setup your free OnlyWire account.  After your OnlyWire account is set up, come back and press that “Bookmark & Share” button under your article.  That’s all there is to it.  Auto-syndicate your article “to Millions of Readers with One Button” – so everyone can see your article featured @ The U C C.

Note, however: Re-posting your submission as a front page article may require format, appearance and possible grammar editing. Don’t worry. Even when we must edit inconsistent form — we’ll never censor or edit substance.  So long you agree and understand responsibility for what you write is all yours.

Finally, we’ve been asked if there can be compensation for regular contributing.  Well – look.  The Ultimate Culture Clash was never started to make money.  It’s not about making money.  It’s about saving the world by confronting the most burning issues.  Your ideas, ideals and ideologies.  That said – we are not opposed to making money in a good cause.

If there are regular contributors bringing increasing focus & attention to The U C C.  If there’s financial profit to be made from increasing popularity.  Then yes.  Absolutely.  We absolutely would share the benefits of increasing attention with those contributing to the attention.  But.  Let’s not count on chickens before there’s eggs.  And.  While not opposed to making money in a good cause – let’s never allow making money to distract us from good causes.  From what The Ultimate Culture Clash is about in the first place.

Mark Kingwell sounds really upset.  No telling if he really is — but he sure sounds like it.

So what has Kingwell got to sound so upset about?  Not that much, from the sound of it.  Mostly his own idea that Harper and Ignatieff are killing Canadian democracy.  Because, according to Kingwell, Canadian democracy can’t survive how rude Harper and Ignatieff are.

.. when Stephen and Michael’s insult swapping and bogus claims have filled the conversational air to such a degree that we can no longer hear, let alone appreciate, a sane voice with a good idea, a just idea — when that happens, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Wait, though.  As Prime Minister and Leader of the Official Opposition – isn’t that what Harper and Ignatieff are supposed to do?  Isn’t it their job — not getting too civil with each other?  Not getting too chummy?

How could there be any pretense of Canadian democracy if Harper and Ignatieff seemed too chummy?  Collaborative?  If they became entirely collegial?  If there was evidence of collusion instead of opposition?  There could be no more pretense of Canadian democracy.  It would amount to admitting how we vote makes no difference.

Absent clear disagreeing, divisions and opposition between elected so-called representatives, it could only mean more of the same – regardless how we voted.  It would mean our voting could make no difference whatsoever.

Let’s be fair to Kingwell, though.  Since he isn’t saying elected representatives ought to agree more.  He’s saying they ought to be more agreeable.  More civil.  Because, says Kingwell, “Incivility.. doesn’t just threaten the etiquette of interchange, it threatens democracy.”

Seriously?  How can incivility threaten democracy – when we know democracy can survive even civil war?  Kingwell doesn’t exactly say.  He suggests we better believe it, though.

The real software of democracy is…  [P]olitical literacy, the ability to engage in critical dialogue with ideas both agreeable and disagreeable…  We need to learn this skill…

Thus, since we have yet to learn how, presumably we do not have the ability to engage in critical dialogue with ideas.  Presumably, we don’t know how to engage disagreeably.  But what a dubious claim for Kingwell to not make.  To even suggest.

Absent evidence to the contrary – does it not stand to reason that disagreeing entails greater engagement than agreeing?  That hard talk commands more attentions than small talk?  And even if Kingwell’s suggestion were true.  Even if people tend to disengage disagreeable ideas.  When did it become pre-requisite that people’s ideas be well thought out?  Concluding democracy hinges on us becoming more insightful and thoughtful requires an overt and powerful argument.  Such conclusions cannot follow merely by suggestion.  Particularly not since Kingwell’s conclusions seem so elitist – whereas democracy so often seems most commendably populist.

Kingwell himself – not necessarily our existing political conversations – must engage more critically with ideas.   And let’s be honest.  If Kingwell really is upset?  It’s not because incivility really threatens our political discourse.  Democracy is rough, populist and more than ready to handle incivility.  Kingwell, on the other hand?  He’s not so populist.  He’s not so ready to have his own, more privileged conversations interrupted.

And indeed, that’s what appears to have happened.  That’s what got interrupted.  Kingwell’s conversation.  Not everyone else’s.

.. while Kingwell was taking comments following his speech, two Liberal parliamentarians began their own conversation at their table — clearly audible to all…  Not just audible, actually. They practically shut down one whole side of the room.

And as if that were not injury enough?  Someone later had the gall to add insults:

If people were talking over Kingwell, then that’s not so uncivil…  They’ve probably heard the speech before and got bored. I’ve heard it, and it’s frigging boring.

“To which,” writes Kingwell, “the only rational response is fuck you.”

Well – damn.  Makes perfect sense for Kingwell to get prissed.  Only not about protecting everyone else’s political discourse.  More about better privileging his own conversations against rudeness.  And why not?  His elitism is not absolute.  That “fuck you” goes to show Kingwell is not our least favourite English aunt.  The one always exhorting silence unless we can say something nice.  Kingwell is more imaginative.  His version goes, “If you can’t say something nice – then fuck you.”

Finally.  Let’s be clear.  Let’s not have too much misunderstanding.  Just because Kingwell is wrong to say rudeness can threaten democracy – that doesn’t mean democracy cannot be threatened.  To the contrary.  There’s myriad threats to democracy.  Only rudeness and incivility are not among those threats.

Disagreeable expression cannot render speech meaningless.  And even when ignored, disagreeable ideas nevertheless remain meaningful.  There is always that choice whether to meaningfully engage or disengage.  And the choice to disengage is not fatal to democracy – not so long the choice remains.  But that choice can also be lost entirely when meaning itself fails.  And that’s when the possibility of democracy fails.  When every possibility of meaningful discourse fails.  When only violence can mean anything.

From some elements of criminality to cultural fragmentation to the scorched-earth between inimical cultures, violent conflict can remain the only meaningful expression when fundamental meanings become too contradictory, too glaringly inconsistent to conceivably reconcile.

How can there be meaningful discourse between fundamental contradictions in meaning?  There can’t.  Not if the contradictions are indeed fundamental.  Not until one and all fundamentally contradicting voices are silenced.

That’s the real, ultimate challenge democratic culture must survive.  How to maintain discursive coherence, how to avoid the language of violence while contradicting ideals and ideologies entail irreconcileable differences in our fundamental identities and meanings. It used to be that scorched earth due to contradictions in fundamental meanings more securely divided inimical cultures.  But no longer.  Not in our multicultural Western societies.  Not in present and future multicultural urban spaces, where cultural clashing as between empires of the past can manifest between neighourhoods.  From one street to the next.  From one side of the street to the other.

How frivolous to become agitated over incivility.  While, with every day passing, we grow increasingly aware there could be no reconciling the ideals  we are prepared to live — against the ideologies so many are eager to kill and to die for.

Nice try.  Really.  Great effort to revise the memory of Ronald Reagan.  To get people believing Ronald Reagan Was A Peacenik Like Obama.  And it isn’t completely unfounded – since Reagan did indeed propose reducing U.S. and U.S.S.R. nuclear stockpiles.

But why even try?  What point making Reagan out to have been Obama-like?  No great mystery.  Mostly because there’s been  too much criticism.  Too much concern how weak Obama is perceived to be.  Even now, securing Senate votes to ratify START is no sure thing.  And uncertainties only multiplied since Medvedev linked Russian compliance with nuclear arsenal reductions to America not defending too well against incoming nuclear missiles:

.. the agreement is being considered in effect as long as the circumstances in which it was born remain. If they change, that would be the reason for a review of the agreement. That’s for any agreement. Such circumstances in this case are related to the development of the anti missile defense system.

Too much uncertainty.  Too much critical concern when it comes to Obama.  On the other hand?  Reagan gets remembered with nothing but praise.  Thus, why not defuse Obama criticism with Reagan praise – by making Reagan and Obama seem much the same?

Like, how can there be so much criticism at Barak Obama efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiling?  Obama’s doing just what Reagan always wanted to do.  There can’t be such criticism when Obama succeeds what Reagan could only try.  Not while Reagan gets remembered with nothing but praise.

Makes tactical sense.  If Obama ambitions are powerfully Reagan-like – instead of haplessly Carter-like – then perhaps there’s nothing to fear.

There’s even a sense this is true.  Not just about Reagan, Obama and Carter.  Any sane person hopes, prays and fervently wishes nuclear stockpiling reduced.  Entirely eliminated.  But.  However fervently sane people might wish – they are no less sane to fear tinkering with mutually assured destruction formulae.  Especially if MAD formulae really do account for global survival.

It is only sensible fearing mad tinkering could spark something nuclear.  Which is precisely why Reagan used to get so endlessly and bitterly criticized for mad tinkering after his StarWars speech.

Only after collapsing the Soviet Empire has there been every American praise for Reagan.  Since no single other thing can be blamed more for the Soviet Empire collapsing than Reagan’s madly unrealistic StarWars tinkering.  The Soviets just couldn’t keep up with Reagan’s mad lack of realism.

Now it’s Obama’s turn to get endlessly bitterly criticized for mad tinkering.  Except in Obama’s case?  His tinkering appears to completely contradict Reagan’s.  For while Reagan was guided by an ideal or ideology of peace through American strength – Obama seems guided by an ideal or ideology of peace through American weakness.

Perceptions of Barack Obama cannot be reconciled with memories of Ronald Reagan.  It’s absurd to even try comparing.  For while there’s no doubting Obama gets results – no less than Reagan used to – there’s no comparing how their results get obtained.  Obama gets by conciliating concessions. Whereas Reagan got results by playing tougher.  By negotiating from greater strength.

Reagan proved peace through strength worked fine.  Obama, hopefully, will go on to prove what Carter never could — that peace through weakness can work as well.  Or, to be fair — that peace through trust can work.  And who knows?  Maybe we really can trust the Russians nowadays.  Why not?  If Obama can succeed turning the U.S. into a more ideal and ideological Marxist worker’s paradise – why shouldn’t there be best friendship with Russia?

But no, that’s cheap.  Let’s just hope there can be partnership with Russia.  Otherwise?  If the Russians don’t honour treaties better than they used to?  If they see this treaty as the best opportunity yet to inflate their sphere of influence?  If they feel too threatened by U.S. missile defending?  Then the new Start treaty amounts to counting nuclear silos before they’re hatched.

The crux remains whether there can be trust.  If there really is a new level of trust between Moscow and Washington.  Whether there can be enough trust when Russia threatens to quit new nuclear treaty before the deal is signed.

There has to be enough trust – and too many feel there isn’t any trust at all.  One commenter, for instance, wrote,

I know for a fact that we cannot trust the russians. My girlfriends father was part of a group of military personell sent to russia to watch them destroy their nukes. He even said that the russians were putting on a big show.

However.  Even if so.  It isn’t the Russians we most need to fear.  Not any more.  Not since Reagan changed the world – by making America the world’s sole superpower.

Even if the entire strategic world views Obama as a weak fool.  Even if most world leaders are happily giving Obama all the rope he needs to tie American hands.  Even if Obama changes the world – by making America another state among regular nations.  Regardless.  The worst nightmare scenarios are no longer entailed by tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

The worst nightmare now is that Islamist societies will go nuclear ballistic.  And while nobody has come anywhere near bringing peace to the Middle East?  Should Obama prove himself the weak, conciliatory, concessionary fool so many believe?  Then there will be nuclear hell to pay either on or solely due to Obama’s watch.

It really is ridiculous. The divisive, ideological rage. Last week, I thought it was too much and potentially hazardous to everything democratic. That’s why I posted it’s Not Worth Another Civil War. But now? It has just become ridiculous.

Not only is there too much anger.  There are too many enemies of democracy posing as patriots in the bastion of democracy.  Posing as American patriots.  And while some enemies of democracy are hard-core Marxists getting their marching orders from China, Venezuela or North Korea.  While others are Islamists getting their marching orders from Iran, Saudi-Arabia or Hamas.  The enemies of democracy posing as the greatest patriots couldn’t follow marching orders if Sarah Palin drew them personal maps.

No disrespect whatsoever to Sarah Palin — whom I do admire.  But since sanity requires anyone to admire democracy most — it follows for everyone to hold enemies of democracy in greatest contempt.

Not only is there too much anger.  There is too much absurdity from the enemies of democracy thinking themselves patriots.  Here are only some examples how ridiculous they sound.

I’m totally ready for a Civil War. And I think that alot of other American Patriots are too.  And Obama can kiss my ass.  Cause we will take this Country back.

and,

Actually the attack the Progressives, led by obama, are engaging in, is going to start another Civil War, and yes protecting our Constitution against the progressives is worth another war.

and,

We no longer have any rights… or constitution… we are ruled now by an iron fisted fascist…

and,

I agree we should be constructive in our efforts to take our country back from the socialists that are destroying it! The construction should be prisons for the treason against the constitution they have committed! LOL!

and,

Then again, it may be easier just to leave the USA.

None of these examples are to suggest that struggle against what can be too far left Marxist ideological agenda from the Obama Administration is unwarranted.  Only that opposition and struggle must be lawful — fully acknowledging Barak H. Obama as the legitimately elected President of the U.S.  Because doing otherwise could do irretrievable damage to democracy itself.

Just as Iran’s Republic of Fear is best undermined by the voices of citizens rising for democracy — so the bastion of democracy in the U.S. can be worst undermined by seemingly patriotic voices clamoring against democracy, legitimacy and the rule of law.

When there is respect for democracy?  That’s when resistance becomes not just powerfully legitimate — but invaluable.  One self-identified member of the Tea Party movement commented thus:

Extremism in the cause of liberty is no vice, moderation in the face tyranny is no virtue, and I do believe that our Constitution is worth defending by what ever means necessary.

How principled.  Everyone raved.  But I was very suspicious.  How necessary can it be to violate democratic principles in order to defend the Constitution?  Is it too long — waiting the next elections without taking up arms?  And was this just another ideologue posturing as if ideally principled — only when legitimate democratic leadership failed to conform with his or her ideological striping?  Like, would this commenter have said or done the same to defend the Constitution from Richard Nixon or  George Bush?

That’s why I had to ask,

… Were you as extremely out to fight against Bush in the cause of liberty as you are to fight against Obama?

And the commenter replied:

I have been protesting the growth of government my entire adult life.  I was marching against the expansion of government and the erosion of our liberties during the Reagan administration.  Me and a handful of other pitiful protesters…  It is nice to see so many joining the fight, and better late than never, I just hope it isn’t too late.  This administration is moving faster and further towards the collectivist nightmare than any in my lifetime.

Wow.  If that’s how thoughtful and principled Tea Partiers are — just wow.

There were other commenters came across relatively thoughtful.  Sounding not necessarily absurd but principled and all out to defend the Constitution.  But not really.  They only sounded not absurd.  They gave themselves away as more mere ideologues.  Since even their Constitutional defense arguments were too obviously devised to dispense with democratic principles and the rules of law.  For instance:

… you name me one president ever who has NOT shown all his credentials? Or name me one president who has taken the oath of office and then set about to destroy the Constitution right before your very eyes? name me one! name me one president who has ever spent (wasted) as much money in office on NOTHING as this one has? Name me one!!  Name me one president who has bribed and coerced congress to pass a bill that 86% of the public DID NOT WANT!  Name me one president who has forced a bill through that NO ONE – not even the signers have read? Name me one! Name me one president ever who has sneaked into the bill his own standng army? NAME ME ONE!!! YOU THINK IT ISN’T THERE??? Read it – listen to it…  This is open tyranny – so now you tell me – what does this quote by Benjamin Franklin mean to you??? ” Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to God.”

Alright.  There was some good, important information.  Potentially justifying every lawful resistance.  But rebellion?  That’s why, by and by, I had to respond,

You have got me thinking twice more. But. The evidence is nowhere near conclusive. And now I’d like to tell you something.

Unless the Obama Administration does away with elections? There is no irreparable harm done. The U.S. will have become more socialist — but not in any way totalitarian. Liberty and freedom will remain safe as long as democratic elections continue. And the moment the people decide they’ve had too much socialism? They can elect to shut it down accordingly.

On the other hand. The ideological bitterness between left and right? If it gets to the point where people don’t acknowledge elected Presidents as legitimate — unless Presidents conform to people’s own ideologies? That’s the point no democracy can survive. That’s the point at which everything will turn totalitarian. Irretrievably.

And it went downhill from there.

One man does not ride rough shod over an entire country unless he is a dictator – and that is all that has been done since he took the oath of office…  In the words of Benjamin Franklin, Cupe Doll, “Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to God.” Guess who my master is!!!  It isn’t Obama!

What can I say?  Eventually anyone can run out of patience.  And while I had no clue whether this commenter was Republican? Just the likelihood was enough after all the patience I’d lost.

You.. are a Banana Republican. Because if enough people thought like you? There could be no democratic country. Only a banana republic.

There is tremendous anger in the United States. Outside the U.S. it is difficult to appreciate how much anger there is inside.

Last week, Larry Elder expressed sentiments to both represent and fan greater populist appeal. He concluded thus:

.. the Constitution must be changed. It must be amended to make what was once clear absolutely, positively, unavoidably clear. Two-thirds of the states can call for a constitutional convention, where an amendment can be proposed to prohibit the forced purchase of health insurance. Three-fourths of the states could then ratify it.

Implausible? So was ObamaCare.

Sobering words. But the anger and the fury have gone far beyond sobering. Viscerality from the right against Obama is beginning to exceed even the worst rage of the left against Bush. And there has got to be alarm if any country can withstand such escalating ideological oscillating intact. For when fundamental values heave too much, there could be no remaining common ground to stand.

Ideally, following legitimately democratic elections, Americans should pull together. Unite behind whichever Presidents Americans chose to elect. Ideologically, though? Americans keep pulling yet farther apart. And while raging against Bush from the left was utterly divisive, the guttural response to Obama from the right now crosses the lines of mere division. It may go too far into dangerous territories. Too far beyond every way back to common ground.

It’s hard to even describe how much anger there is. And how isolated this anger is not.

For example.  The following comment erupted in the midst of what had seemed mostly reasonable discussion with American friends concerning ObamaCare:

.. from the first day he entered public office as a member of the Democratic Socialist Party of America under the umbrella of the democratic party, [Obama's agenda] has been to bring this nation to its knees to create the crisis that will let communism take over…

Well.  How classically McCarthyist.  My reply was admittedly dismissive.

If guilt by association were enough to indict or impeach anyone then Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore would be running legal systems — not just their mouths.

And that was that, I thought.  Wrongly.  Because that was only the beginning.  Suddenly, as if by some virtual consensus only I could not perceive, everyone was explaining how well founded that comment had been.  Apparently?  Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, “a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) at a time when the CPUSA took its marching orders from Moscow.”  And Obama’s father was “a self-avowed Marxist who proposed taxes in Kenya on the rich at a rate of up to 100%!”  And Obama was trained in “tactics advocated by the late radical socialist Saul Alinsky“.  And Obama was injected into American politics by communist Alice Palmer, from the home of radical Bill Ayers, endorsed with the blessings of the Chicago Socialists.  And for twenty years, Obama was a fixture at the knees of Marxist-influenced, Black Liberation Theologian Pastor Jeremiah Wright.  And Obama has expressed unhappiness with the U.S. Constitution for not being sufficiently Marxist in terms of redistributive justice.   And, even though his followers initially failed to understand, there simply can’t be any more doubting that Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America must be taken as seriously threatening to do precisely as the original commenter had said.  Bring America to it’s knees.  Bring about that old-time communist takeover.

But how can anyone know what motivates President Obama?  What is in his mind — if, whether and when his mind may change?  And when evaluating his actions as President — how does he seem so radically socialist?  What has he done that Hillary Clinton would not also have done?

Apparently?  President Obama is not to be trusted.  There’s only one reason people still don’t realize what a radical he is.  Because he’s hoodwinking everyone to believing he’s a centrist.  But it’s all just an act he puts on.  And also?  Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted either.  She’s just as radical.  There was this thesis she once wrote.  “The Alinsky Way”.

So now I was pretty much stumped, wasn’t I?  Since the Alinsky name had popped up twice — in connection to both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.  Which could not be mere coincidence.  No way.  Writing a thesis — that’s a very serious undertaking.  Clearly, something very nefarious had to be going on.

Nevertheless.  Regardless how radically Marxist Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may or may not be.  There’s bigger trouble to worry:

Because the kind of hatred the left had for Bush and even more-so the kind of hatred I’m seeing from the right for Obama? That can lead to worse consequences than anything the Bush or Obama administrations could have accomplished on their own. It can lead to democracy itself breaking down. And the world can’t afford American democracy breaking down.

Obama got elected democratically. And I hope the right harnesses its disgust to ensure better leadership next elections. It’s just not worth secession or another civil war.

And, just like that, there was agreement.  Consensus, even.  That while there’s lots of anger — people ought to direct their anger constructively.  Thus, only one thing remains to be said.

Too much ideology can never be constructive.  To the contrary.  Whether ideology be Marxist or reactionary McCarthyist — ideological clashing can sunder even the greatest nation.  And that, unfortunately, is becoming clearer by the day.

It used to be surreal.  News concerning dire existential conflicts in the Middle East – beneath headlines advertising humiliation.  Fortunately, it didn’t last.  Not after someone somewhere reminded that Islamist societies were bound to experience humiliation each day Israel kept surviving.  And that after 60 years failing to destroy Israel?  Humiliation could become unbearable.

Then, just a couple weeks ago?  It got even more surreal.  Where did so many headlines that Israel humiliates Biden, Obama and the United States come from?  How did the very idea of humiliation originate in relation to the U.S. and Israel?

Apparently, mass media inferred humiliation when Biden said that Israeli buildings in Jerusalem were endangering American troops.

But why?

Debatably, Israeli buildings are counter-productive.  Maybe even dangerous.  Conceivably Israeli buildings are worse than Islamist rocketing never stopping.  There could be architecture so atrocious as to make buildings worse than killings.

But humiliating?

And then the White House denied Biden ever said that Israeli actions are endangering American soldiers.  One senior administration official got quoted completely denying it: “It’s nothing he said and I don’t know how it was inferred.”

So where did the outlandish idea of humiliating Israeli buildings come from?  It had to come from somewhere.  And since there’s no evidence either Joe Biden or Barack Obama felt remotely humiliated — the idea must have originated with the media itself.

If it did?  If there was humiliation in the media due to Israeli buildings in east Jerusalem?  Then the media ought never have admitted it.  Never mind not projecting members’ own sense of humiliation onto Biden and Obama — due to how factual projection isn’t.  Admitting any humiliation whatever under these unwarranted circumstances is itself humiliating.

Could there be humiliation from Israeli buildings because of anti-Semitism?  Not likely.  Not unless anti-Semitism were so extreme to react just about anything Israeli as humiliating.  Not unless the very existence of Israel were humiliating.  And so long as mass international media has independence from societies chartered, constituted or calling for Israel’s genocide?  There can be no common ground to conclude genocidal anti-Semitism in mass international media.

This is worth stressing.  Any humiliation experienced by mass international media concerning Israeli buildings should not be considered Islamist in origin.  Should not be considered genocidal in scope.  Not like, for one instance, the anti-Semitism of IAW organizers and sympathizers.  Because those shouting “Israel Apartheid!” can’t even understand how offensive apartheid is.  Why anything so absolutely offensive as apartheid can’t be done in self-defense.  How IAW hatred of Israeli self-defending can only be genocidal.  Since really hating someone for defending against genocide?   That’s got to be genocidal hatred.

Whereas there’s no reason to think whatever media humiliation there is — from Israeli buildings — has genocidal character.  Instead, whatever humiliates the media?  It has more apartheid character.  It isn’t about wiping all Isreali buildings from the map.  It’s about not mixing Israeli buildings with non-Israeli muslim buildings.

Thus, whatever humiliates the media?  The origin of media humiliation is not likely Islamist.  There must be another endemic accounting media humiliation.  Accounting all those humiliating headlines suddenly and groundlessly emerging from mass media as if by international accord.  And there is.  There’s the international accord due to international ideology.  Particularly the false scientific, absurdly materialistic ideology colloquially known as Marxism.  An ideology that attributes all human struggling to conflict over means of production — and fatuously ignores how human conflicts are governed by contradictions in production of meaning.

There’s just too much ideological naïveté when it comes to the bitterness between Islamist and Israeli societies.  Too much absurdity.  As if the Islamist versus Israeli conflict were some variety of economic class struggling over better access to means of production.  As if Middle Eastern conflict could be deciphered in terms of struggling between poor and rich, between the economically exploited and their economic exploiters.  As if.

But that’s precisely what Marxist ideologues must believe.  That Islamist societies can only be fighting to liberate and more justly redistribute their means of production from oppressive Israeli exploiters.  Because, from their ideological perspective, thinking different could only be wishful.  Un-real.  Conflicts cannot be about contradictions in the production of meaning.  Only about disparities in the means of production.

Why are contradictions in the production of meaning not real?  Why not believe that human struggles could be rooted in conflicting ideologies?  That our worst divisions could reflect fundamental contradictions between cultures?  Because from the materialist perspective of Marxist ideologues, blaming real conflict on mere ideology can only be pipe-dreaming opiates.  Real conflict must have real causes.  Real conflict can only express real material struggles.  Can only originate in tangible class divisions.  And must reflect material exploitation.

Mostly?  Just as a matter of plain facts?  Marxists are wrong.  More human conflicts are ideological. Not economic.  More about production of meanings than about means of production.

Not only don’t the rich have to fight the poor – more often than not they fight together.  Poor and rich of one cultural ideology struggle together – against those of contradicting ideologies.  That’s how and why Islamist societies converge against infidels.  Clearly not because some Islamist societies are wealthiest – and must therefore exterminate poor infidels.  Rather, obviously, due to glaring ideological contradictions and irreconcileable cultural differences.  Even just silly cultural misunderstandings – like Muhammad cartoons – can conflagrate final conflicts more so than monopoly OPEC oil pricing.

Marxists can never understand how wrong they are to believe everything must originate in material causes.  They can never acknowledge conflict due to cultural reasons.  Because the foundation of Marxism is buried by the dogma of scientific materialism.  And absent this central dogma that only causes matter in human history — that reasons are in themselves meaningless – there is no Marxism.

How absurd is that, though?  Scientific materialism is precisely not scientific.  It’s like someone declaring all swans white – then utterly denying every evidence of black swans.

“Like, dude.  Why you bringing black birds?  Those are not swans.  Didn’t I just tell you?  Swans are white.  What’s wrong with you?”

That’s just how dogmatic Marxists are.  Show them conflicts due to cultures clashing?  They’ll deny there’s conflict.  They’ll tell you it’s just vigorous exercise.  And when they must admit there’s real conflict? Then Marxists will deny it can be due to cultures clashing.  They’ll fabulate endless false oppressions and exploitations to account for ideological conflicts in terms of class struggling.

Well, fine.  People can be dogmatic as they please.  But when they please to be that dogmatic?  Then they ought stop lying to themselves and others that they are being scientific.

Marxist ideology sure is absurd.  But what has it to do with humiliation language in the media?  Particularly in relations between the U.S. and Israel?

Goes like this.  Because existential conflict between Islamist and Israeli societies is undeniably real – Marxist ideologues can only conceive it as class struggling.  Socialist media members can never believe Israel is not exploiting and oppressing Islamist societies.  Even though Israel insists it only fights in self-defense?  Even though Islamist societies continually advertise genocidal ambitions when always shooting at Israel?  Even though some Islamist societies loudly and proudly constitute and charter themselves on genocide?  Socialist media can’t believe either Israel or Islamist societies.  Far as socialists are concerned – so what if combatants themselves fail to realize it?  Real conflict can only mean class struggling.

Thus, for socialist media, the existential culture clashing between Islamist and Israeli societies becomes, of all things, a distributive social justice issue.  And when it comes to issues of social justice?  Socialist media have now got tremendous, near absolute faith in U.S. leadership.  Almost as if Obama, Biden and Clinton were some holy socialist triumvirate.

Not to say Obama, Biden and Clinton really are hard-core socialist or ideologically Marxist – as opposed to reasonably progressive.  There can be no doubting they fully understand the existential issues Israel is faced by Islamist societies.  They would never themselves employ the language of insult or humiliation in relation to Israel.

But for regular Marxist ideologues?  For socialist media?  There are the highest hopes vested in Obama’s administration.  Obama, Biden and Clinton have become figureheads of near-absolute faith.  American idols.  That’s why, when Israel places existential concerns ahead of pressures from the Obama administration?  It can only seem like scorn.  It can only feel humiliating to Marxist ideologues.  Almost like Israel were desecrating America’s socialist idols.

Does any of this mean there’s left-wing conspiracy in the media?  Of course not.  How can there be conspiracy where there is such plurality?  From the BBC to Fox News?  But, by same tokens, we know there’s plenty far-left media.  And whenever media wings far enough left?  That’s when it must side with radical Islamic fundamentalism.  So much so that Israeli self-interest and self-defense in response to Islamist genocidal ambitions becomes not just illegitimate — but humiliating to U.S. leadership.  In the eyes and language of more socialist media, that is.

There’s been a mass media blitz the past week about how Israel humiliates Obama by building in Jerusalem.  There’s also starting to be analysis deconstructing Israeli settlements as obstacles to peace.  Like the recent argument from the Guardian — of all places — that Palestinian demands to halt construction in East Jerusalem are a ruse to end negotiations, and delegitimise Israel.  Which analysis, however sound, must be shouted down and drowned out through sheer volume from all siding with Palestinians that Israeli buildings in Jerusalem are worse than killings.  That the worst detriment to peace is buildings — not killings.

Too much analytical superfluity.  Too much ignorance regarding what glares most obviously.  Do mass media pundits honestly expect consumers to swallow even tacit analogies between buildings and killings as legitimate?  As uncontroversial, even?

Perhaps people don’t know.  Rocketing has never stopped.  It has only been reduced to dull roaring since Israelis assaulted Gaza rocketing.  In the first quarter of 2010?  About 30 rockets penetrated into Israel.  Taken on average — two or three times weekly.  Except last week — while President Obama was allegedly getting humiliated by Israeli buildings in Jerusalem — there were three in one day.  Someone got killed.

But even if everyone agreed buildings are worse than killings.  Even then.  What’s with the humiliation language?

There should be no need to ask what more humiliates President Obama.  Israeli buildings in Jerusalem — or Palestinian television calling for Jihad against America.  Israeli buildings — or the Palestinian Authority naming an entire square after the murderer of an American photographer.  Buildings — or a Turkish anchorman doing skits in blackface while Obama visits Turkey.  Israelis not unconditionally respecting Palestinian aspirations to territories captured from Jordan in self-defensive war — or Islamist shooting, shelling, mortaring, bombing and rocketing at Israel never stopping?

There should be no need to ask.  First, because it would be absurd expecting unconditional respect when someone can’t stop shooting — instead of expecting shooting to stop so there can ever be any glimmering respect.  And second, there should be no need to ask what more humiliates President Obama — just because how presidential Obama is.  Because there’s no way President Obama can so easily be humiliated.  Regardless what side he’s on.  Regardless what he happens to believe worst.  Buildings or killings.

So.  Regardless what anyone believes worst — buildings or killings.  Regardless even who one blames all the killings on.  Islamist societies, for never ceasing shooting at Israel, for always bragging how they will genocide Israel — for going so far as to charter themselves on Israel’s genocide.   Or whether one blames Israel — if just because at this moment kill ratios so heavily favour Israel.  Regardless.  What’s with all the humiliation language in the media?

It isn’t new of course.  Some years back it seemed everything Israeli was deemed to humiliate Muslims.  It seemed there could be no coverage of the bitterness between Islamist and Israeli societies without humiliation of Muslims alleged in explanation.  Until someone, somewhere, suggested of course Muslims are humiliated each every time Israel defends herself successfully.  And, just like that, from one week to the next — all the humiliation language ceased and utterly desisted.  Until last week.

Of course successful Israeli self-defending humiliates Muslims.  How could it not?  Genociding Israel in 1948 was expected to require days or at most weeks.  Instead?  Nothing but epic failing when it first came to genociding Israel in 1948.

It must have been unbelievable.  Unthinkable.  As if there was some error in divine judgment.  That’s why Islamist societies absolutely had to unite and try again.  And again.  And each time they did?  Went from bad to worst.

Nothing can unite Islamist societies like their endlessly advertised genocidal ambitions when it comes to Israel.  Yet, in that sole and singular passion uniting Islamist societies?  There has been only shame of endless failure.  Islamism united cannot eradicate one country lesser than New York — City — in population.  Like, whose side is g0d on, anyhow?

Of course such failure in a peoples’ manifest destiny and identity entails the most agonizing humiliation.  It is the naqba.  The catastrophe.  Not the creation of Israel.  The ongoing failure to destroy Israel.

And while the meaning of Islam’s humiliation was not understood?  It was only natural for Western media to sympathize.  Yet the moment it was even suggested the humiliation of Islamist societies was due to Israel not hurrying up and dying already?  Then humiliation could not again be mentioned.  Since mentioning it could no longer evoke sympathy in Western audiences.  Only nausea.

Until last week, that is.  When Western media once again adopted humiliation language.  Not in reference to individual Muslims or to Islamist societies — but to Joe Biden and President Obama.

Never mind how humiliated President Obama isn’t.  It is a terrible idea for Western media to adopt language insinuating he might be.  Because once the connection has been made how Israeli survival entails Islamist humiliation?  That’s right.  Implications cannot be avoided that President Obama can be humiliated by Israeli sovereignty — and perhaps very survival — in the same way.  And that’s an idea too terrible for words or language.  The very idea that President Obama could feel in some manner humiliated by Israel independently surviving.

It remains to ask what prompted Western media to adopt humiliation language again.  Could there be Western media elements feeling humiliated by Israeli sovereignty — and perhaps very survival?  Might Western media elements be projecting that sense of humiliation onto President Obama?  That’s worth asking.  Next time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkTsH3ckE8o

Instead of exploding all over North American campuses as in 2009? 2010 Israel Apartheid Weeks are fizzling.

The official website urges:

Mark your calendars – the 6th International Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) will take place across the globe from the 1st to the 14th of March 2010!

But in likely non-event the second week also fails to detonate? Then calendars the world over were marked for naught.

Reports are now being confirmed that U.S. students ignored IAW in droves — preferring to protest rising tuition costs instead.  Meanwhile, at YorkU — site of the peak 2009 IAW experience — there is peace, quiet, cordiality and extra sunshine.  So what happened since last year?  Such extreme loss of faces can only be devastating for IAW organizers boasting that “IAW 2010 takes place following a year of incredible successes”.

Haroon Siddiqui is right to bitterly bemoan the unanimity of condemnation against IAW.  Condemnation crossing every major party line in Canadian governance.  Like, how and when, ever, do Conservatives, Liberals and NDPs all unanimously agree? “Yet both opposition parties have joined the Conservatives in condemning Israeli Apartheid Week,” laments Siddiqui.

Indeed.  Not only federally — where the Liberals’ Michael Ignatieff said, “Labelling Israel as an “apartheid” state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself.”   Also more provincially in Ontario.  NDP’s Cheri DiNovo said, “What we need to build peace… are not inflammatory words like ‘apartheid,’ particularly used inappropriately in the case of Israel”.    And the Conservatives’ Peter Shurman said,

The use of the phrase “Israeli Apartheid Week” is about as close to hate speech as one can get without being arrested, and I’m not certain it doesn’t actually cross over that line.

However.  What Rosie DiManno referred to as an “annual campus hate-fest” could not have been dampened by official condemnation.   Official condemnation could only incense the most radically riotous rallies — such as at YorkU in 2009 — since participants are motivated to oppose what is perceived as official injustice in the first place.

So what happened?  Why have 2010 Israel apartheid weeks sputtered and failed like soggy fuses?

Clearly, IAW organizers made a big mistake.  Like audio jockeys overplaying a top-ten hit, they pushed their hatred too hard.  International audiences did not exactly get tired of hearing it — there’s probably enough anti-Semitism to have kept IAW near the top of the charts for a very long time.  But once IAW became too loud and too proud for pleasant background noise?  Once the volume got raised to foreground in everyone’s face?  That’s when people had to wonder what IAW really meant.  People had to actually think about IAW.  And, of course, IAW cannot bear rational thinking.

Right?  There cannot be apartheid in self-defense. The contradiction is too transparent for anyone not to see right through it.  Therefore, IAW organizers, allies, followers and sympathizers had to claim that Israel does not fight in self-defense.  That Israel has nothing to fear from Islamist societies.  That, to the contrary, Islamist societies must always defend against Israeli aggression.  Unfortunately, the only mileage such claims traverse is from blatant absurdity to patent falsehood.

Israel insists it fights in self-defense.  That even to survive it must win all wars Islamist societies always start.  Israel claims it has no interest to colonize, cleanse, genocide or otherwise molest Islamist societies.

Islamist societies, on the other hand?  Islamist societies keep no secrets.  They do keep bragging how they will genocide Israel.  One Islamist society is actually chartered on genociding Israel.

Who to believe?  It doesn’t matter.  Whether international audiences credit everything Israel claims.  Or whether international audiences can’t believe anything Israeli and place full faith in Islamist societies forever boasting Israel’s genocide.  Either way.  Israel must fight in self-defense.

This is how IAW became too sordid for merely casual gazing or listening — nevermind participating.  For if one cannot avoid actually thinking about it?  There’s no help concluding Israel must fight in self-defense.  And if Israel must fight in self-defense?  Then screaming “Israel Apartheid” entails not just contradiction — but almost inconceivable hatred.

Why?  Because those screaming “Israel Apartheid” seem to really mean it.  They really seem to be all that offended by Israel defending against Islamist societies out to genocide her.  As if self-defense by Israelis were equivalent to South-African apartheid.  And that goes beyond discrimination.  It goes beyond contradiction.  It goes beyond incoherence.  It goes to the kind of hatred most of us cannot readily conceive.

When you really hate someone for defending against attempted genocide?  That’s genocidal hatred.