There is no Two-State Solution

Yesterday, 20th January 2020, twenty-odd British political worthies of the left and right –and of both chambers –  wrote a short letter to The Times titled, “The Time is Right to Recognise Palestine”. (I’ve put a screenshot of the letter after the footnote references.)

The “time is now”, we are told, to “best serve the cause of peace”, because “Israel’s actions are pushing a two-state solution beyond reach”.

The signatories of the letter finish by telling us they want “equal rights for peoples in two states”.

The two-state solution is beyond reach – through no fault of Israel – regardless of the fact that two-states remains the official foreign-policy position of the UK Government. The two-state solution was emphasised by Boris Johnson when he was Foreign Secretary, who on the centenary of the Balfour Declaration in 2017 wrote his “vision for Middle East peace”. Prime Minister Johnson’s piece is still on gov.uk, where you will see that it is not visionary at all, but the same old British broken-record stuck on “two-state solution”, oblivious to the realities. [i]

The two-state solution was pushed beyond reach not by Israel, but by the region’s Arab regimes, and it still is. Jews accepted the two-state solution agreed by the UN in 1947. Arabs immediately turned it down, and told the Arabs and Bedouins of the land to temporarily move out of the way, to allow 7 Arab armies (or 7.5 if we include the British officers and men who fought with the Transjordan army) to destroy the nascent Jewish state and push all the Jews – including many refugees of the Holocaust – into the sea.  Arabs lost the ensuing Arab-Israeli wars, of course.  Many of the Arabs of the 1948 war who had been told to move out of the way, or were otherwise caught up in the conflict, became refugees.  There were about 700,000 Arab refugees. And there were about 850,000 Jewish refugees who fled, or were expelled from, the Arab nations – the majority of whom aimed for Israel. Today, approximately half the Jewish population of Israel are refugees, or descendants of refugees, from the Arab lands.  The Arab nations to this day have, cruelly, refused to absorb the Arab refugees, or even their descendants, now into the fourth generation.

Arabs didn’t just lose the wars, but lost honour. And this loss of Arab honour, and its cultural association with blood and sacrifice, is something that is rarely acknowledged or understood in the UK.  Arab loss of honour is, in Arab culture, a catastrophe that passes from generation to generation [ii] .  The Arab medieval codes have, as yet, far from petered out, just as, in Christian Europe, salvaging honour by duelling to the death was not outlawed until well into the 20th century.  For 1400 years of Islam, the Jews were not even allowed to arm themselves. And so how could this ill-equipped start-up army of WWII survivors defeat the whole of the mighty Islamic Arab world?  The shame of it.

Many times since 1947, the Arabs have been offered two-state solutions.  Israel has complied with agreements, such as unilaterally pulling out of Sinai, south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, and offering to kick-start their agriculture and economies, only to immediately see these areas filled with rockets and terrorist organisations (including from Iran) and the construction of miles of terror tunnels (costing $billions, and using all the concrete and other materials that should have been destined for schools, hospitals, homes etc.).

Today, who in their right mind, truly believes that Israel could defend herself against, say, all the factions now roaming Syria, if they were allowed access anywhere near the Green Line of the two-state solution, which is within an easy and flat stroll of Tel Aviv and the international airport?

And would Iran remove its 150,000 rockets from south Lebanon if Arabs were to get a new nation called “Palestine” neighbouring Israel? No, it wouldn’t because Iran wants nothing less than the obliteration of Israel, which the Iranian clerics have convinced themselves is “little Satan”: the Middle-Eastern metaphysical enemy of Islam that must be put to death along with the USA, the “great Satan”.

Few in the UK acknowledge, or even seem to know, that the whole of the Arab world, like much of Europe, had been thoroughly propagandised with Nazi and Christian antisemitism, largely through colonial powers, i.e. Fascist Italy, Vichy France (and before that the antisemitic French Third Republic) and even the British.  And from Berlin, hosted by Hitler, the so-called Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – Mohammed Amin al-Husseini – broadcast Nazism globally in Arabic through powerful shortwave transmitters.

Post-War Europe, including in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church, tried to reflect on why and how Christian Europe had become genocidally antisemitic and thereby to make amends. Germany and Austria banned the teaching of Mein Kampf and Holocaust denial, and the RC Church published its Nostra Aetate declaration on relations with Jews.  The Arab world never tried to cure its antisemitism, and never came to share Western Europe’s sense of Holocaust guilt and shame (and neither did Communist Eastern Europe come to that). Hitler is still as admired throughout the Arab world as he was in the 1930s and 40s.  Arabic translations of Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion are, today, bestselling.  Protocols is believed to be true by the Arab elite, and is taught in the universities.  Protocols is quoted on authority in the Hamas Covenant.

I wrote a long piece in August 2019, explaining that the primary and sustaining cause of the Arab-Israel conflict is genocidal antisemitism[iii]. If you do not acknowledge the seriousness of the region’s genocidal antisemitism, you have nothing serious to say about solutions for peace.

The British politicians want, “Equal rights for peoples in two states”? Show me any Arab nation that has equal rights, or anything resembling universal human rights, including for Jews, Christians, Sufis, Druze and others.  Former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told us last year that persecution of Christians in the region is now “near genocide”. [iv]

“The time is right” for a Palestinian state?  Really?  Who is to govern it?  Who is going to prevent genocide?  The three bodies that currently administer the Jew-free Arab regions are Hamas, Fatah (or Palestinian Authority) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Even according to their own covenants and charters, these three bodies are genocidally antisemitic and committed to the obliteration of Israel.

Antisemitism is a chronic illness that, when it flares up, eats away at the mind of those it infects, and destroys the hater more thoroughly than the hated.  It can be cured, or at least controlled. The Germans, Austrians, Italians, French, Romanians… today are largely cured of genocidal antisemitism, but the Arab nations are not, and, alarmingly, we see much evidence now of cross-infection back to Europe (not least British politics).  If British politicians are seriously interested in solutions to peace, they should be seeking solutions that help to cure the Arab nations and Iran of genocidal antisemitism.  Only then can we say, “the time is right”, to do something constructive.

 

[i] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/my-vision-for-middle-east-peace-between-israel-and-a-new-palestinian-state-article-by-boris-johnson-on-the-balfour-declaration (Boris Johnson)

[ii] http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2014/06/27/tablet-article-arab-worlds-emotional-nakba/  (Dr Richard Landes)

[iii] https://markpickles.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/the-arab-israeli-conflict-made-simple/ (Mark Pickles)

[iv] “Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels’ “:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305

 

Times

Posted in Antisemitism, Israel, Political philosophy, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jewish Philosophy or Progressive-Leftism?

The motivation for this piece is the actions taken by the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) against David Collier, who, it seems to me, is one Britain’s foremost and effective defenders of Israel.

As I see it, the BoD is too eager to adhere to the ‘progressive’ left-wing trend of our liberal democracy, even if that means undermining Israel, hence the conflict with David.

I have met David once, very recently in fact, but only very briefly, and so I do not really know his theological or philosophical views. What I do know is that his prolific writing and campaigning are consistent with my own philosophical theology, some of which I am going to offer here.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews represents British Jews to Britain at large.  The problem seems to be that the median of thinking in the BoD falls out at progressive leftism, perhaps because the BoD over-represents fringe synagogues that are “liberal”, “reform”, and “progressive”.

Now, I accept that liberal democracy is good. Thank heaven for it. Where it is most effective, it protects Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics… and all law-abiding people of good will. The problems start when liberal democracies forget that their ‘humanist’ values are actually rooted in theophany:  the revelations of the People Israel.

And in our times, Western liberal democracy, at the intellectual level, in the universities, in the intelligentsia, has skewed to the progressive-left, with its contempt for the West’s religious tradition and culture to which Western civilisation is overwhelmingly indebted.  Liberal democracy is becoming increasingly detached from its roots, which are in fact the philosophies of Israel or Christianity. It is now attached to the neo-Marxist philosophies that came out of France, through Jacques Derrida (atheist Jew) and Michel Foucault and others.  Its centre is not Israel and Jerusalem, but California and San Francisco.  And it is pushed by Silicon Valley.

As we know, although Jews amount to a mere 1 in 500 of the world population, out of their tribe comes an extraordinary amount of God-given talent, and Jews often find themselves as the leaders in their chosen profession. Silicon Valley is no exception; the founders of Google, Facebook and other dominant companies are secular Jews.  Although these people are exceptionally rich, the San Franciscan vision of the world is progressive left-wing, if not neo-Marxist: borderless nations, contempt for religion (apart from Islam), multiculturalism, global community, political correctness, “Free Palestine”, contempt for the military, and a vacuous philosophy that goes no deeper than campaigning for gender-free toilets and “multiculturalism”.

To see how language has been systematically deconstructed from the Holy, look no further than Derrida.  To see how children came to be supposed to question their God-given gender, look no further than Foucault.  And look to Foucault also for the progressive-left inability to see the malignancy of contemporary Islam, not least the Islamic Republic of Iran. Foucault wrote much in support of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, as a “political spirituality” and wrote gushing praise for Ayatollah Khomeini.  Foucault wrote:

“Islam values work; no one can be deprived of the fruits of his labor, what must belong to all (water, the sub-soil) shall not be appropriated by anyone. With respect to liberties, they will be respected to the extent that their exercise will not harm others; minorities will be protected and free to live as they please on the condition that they do not harm the majority; between men and women there will not be inequality with respect to rights, but difference, since there is natural difference. With respect to politics, decisions should be made by the majority, the leaders should be responsible to the people, and each person, as it is laid out in the Quran, should be able to stand up and hold accountable he who governs.” (cf. Foucault and the Iranian Revolution – Gender and the Seductions of Islam, Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson)

And this is how the progressive-left seems to think: because Islam (and Islamic Socialism) has taken over from Western Socialism as the most realistic challenge to the West, it must be good, because the West is to be self-despised.  Conservatism is to be despised.  And so let’s look at Islam through the eyes of Foucault and Dr Pangloss.

Similarly the English left, during and after WWII, could not stand to see fault in Stalinism and the Socialist Bloc, which is why George Orwell wrote Animal Farm, and 1984 about the Party Ingsoc (or English Socialism).  Wherever there is an opportunity to break down Western tradition, including religious tradition, and dissolve the nations, and dissolve gender, it is to be given a chance. As for Islam, we are to only see the good in it, and not the malignant nature of contemporary political Islam.

Give the “two-state solution” yet another chance, say the Board of Deputies and Yachad*.  Don’t worry about the fact that Iran makes no secret of aiming to perpetrate genocide on the Jews of Israel, including through Hezbollah, through which Iran has installed 150,000 rockets hidden amongst the civilian populations of the southern towns of Lebanon. Ignore the fact that Iran has been smuggling rockets into the Gaza Strip, or that Qatar, the political base of the Muslim Brotherhood, is funding its destruction-of-Israel project, and funding play-for-slay to Palestinian Authority. “Yes”, the Board of Deputies and Yachad seem to be saying, we know Iran says it is going to obliterate Israel and remove her from the map altogether, and so do the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Fatah (Palestinian Authority), and all the manifestations of the Muslim Brotherhood.  We know that as soon as Israel abandons the Golan Heights she will be overwhelmed by one or other of the internecine factions of Syria or Lebanon or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), none of whom are the least bit interested in upholding the values of “liberal democracy”, which is ideologically anathema to them.  And yes, we know the Arab nations have murdered or expulsed all their Jews, but we are going keep on saying “two-state solution” because everyone else does, and it sounds “democratic” – even though not a single Arab nation has a liberal democracy, or human rights, and the nations of the Middle East and North Africa have recently unleashed near genocide* on the region’s Christians. How else are we going to earn our place around the table of Western liberal democracy if we don’t support the “two-state solution”?

My advice to the BoD is to forget the progressive-left and the philosophies of Derrida and Foucault. Yes, if you want to be popular, preach Foucault, in which kids change gender, and with Foucault, support Iran and Qatar and the rest of contemporary Islam.  And ignore the fact that Israel is besieged by Islamic Arabs, Turks and Iranians on all sides.  And ignore the fact that the many times the Arabs have been offered a two-state solution they have turned it down, in the belief that their Jihad will enable them to take the whole of Israel from river to the sea.

But leadership is not all about being popular.  Yes, progressive British Jews will be popular if they agree to plans that will lead to the jihadist destruction of Israel.  But, as I have written elsewhere, I see this as the destruction of all civilisation.  Switch off the light to all nations, and all nations are blinded. Destroy “the apple of His eye”, and the whole planet is condemned to a black hole.

Back to the Basics of Progress

No alternative philosophy to imago dei has ever worked. And it is through the People Israel that our Creator – God of Israel – introduced the very idea of the sanctity of Time, and progress of the fulfilment of the history of the world in God of Israel, whose chosen nation is to be the light unto the nations. The progress, the goal, for the world, is God. If you settle for something less, you are not really progressive, but regressive. You are like the lazy grazing cattle at the front, who need prodding to allow the whole herd on to the best pastures.

Before God of Israel broke into our world, less than a mere 4000 years ago, there was no notion of historical “progress”. Even for the most advanced peoples, such as the Egyptians, Phoenicians and Chinese, and the Confucians, Taoists and the Buddhists, time was wholly cyclic, not linear. There was no progress, just change: good times, bad times, good times, bad times… ad infinitum.  Nature gods and agricultural gods and witchcraft merely accounted for the cycles of nature. The people merely tried to interrupt the cycles of fortune and misfortune within the physics, or divine which of the competing gods would be the next to act, and which should be placated.

The Jews pointed us to beyond nature gods and physics, to God Almighty, God of Israel, the One True God (just as we now know there is only one Big Bang, just one source of Creation, not many sources/gods).

The Jews, uniquely, spoke of linear time, Holy time, and progress through history (to ultimately an end-state), behind all the cycles, and ruled by Almighty God. God even rules the physics, and is able to intervene into His own “laws” of physics.

If we forget Jerusalem, and face ‘progressive’ San Francisco, progress is undone.  Judaism is undone, and so is Christian civilisation too. Liberal democracy/progressivism becomes the goal of itself for itself.

The true goal is not liberal democracy, no more than it is Communism or any other humanist aspiration. As we know, half the Decalogue, the very basis of Western civilisation, relates to God. There has never been a successful atheistic nation or society anywhere, and there never will be.  Drop the Torah, and you have dropped everything.

Liberal democracy self-negates when it loses God, God of true progress: God, Lord of History. We see this now in ultra-secular Sweden, which has the highest rate of rape, child abuse and domestic violence in the EU, and is now defenceless against Islamism and antisemitism (especially Islamist antisemitism). Not surprisingly, the Swedish government is notoriously anti-Israel, perhaps to try to sate the nation’s Islamists.

“Israel” is obviously seen as an anachronism for those whose goal of goals is liberal democracy. But Israel is the nation of our Creator, God of Israel, who is to pilot all nations (not blocs of nations or empires or caliphates) to their destiny, through the Jews, as Israel becomes light unto the nations, centred on Jerusalem (not Al-Quds). Israel, let us say, will lead the world to its Shabbat of history

The BoD claims to support Israel, and is constitutionally committed to do so, but it can never properly defend Israel as the world’s uniquely Jewish nation on the principles of liberal democracy, nor “inter-faith dialogue”. For one thing, there are billions of Christians and Muslims, most of whom are supersessionist, and think they should appropriate the Holy Land. In every democratic forum, including the UN, Israel is monotonously voted down and condemned by all nations apart from the USA. And if, God forbid, the Democrats win the next election, Israel will be truly alone.

The BoD, if it really does support Israel, must look vertically, and stiff-necked, to God of Israel, not horizontally to liberal democracy, and especially not to the progressive left.

As I often pester my Jewish friends, Jews in the public domain are shy of speaking about God, preferring, it seems to me, to be fully accepted around the tables of the ‘progressives’, where god is reduced to “any other business?” But if only the Muslims speak of God, the intellectual battle is lost; they will take Jerusalem, and the light will be extinguished in a godforsaken caliphate. And there is no greater threat to global liberal democracy than contemporary Islam. A Jerusalem, or ‘Al-Quds’, centred caliphate would be a disaster for everyone, including for the world’s oppressed Muslims (most of whom are oppressed by their own governments).

In sum. All 57 nations of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation really do need to reform to liberal democracy and catch up with the 21st century, but the Western liberal democracies need to re-learn God of Israel, and His eternal covenants with the Jews. As the lawmaker said, Eretz Israel is to be the head nation not a tail nation, for the good of all, and for the ultimate and mysterious good. In God we trust.

Further reading:

*David Collier’s recent criticism of the Board of Deputies:

The Board of Deputies don’t want us to talk about their survey

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch:
Twitter.com/HillelNeuer

“Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels’ “:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305

 

Posted in Antisemitism, Christianity, Israel, Judaism, Political philosophy, Science, Theology, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Jews Must Lead us to The End of Time


When allowed to rage unchecked […] anti-Jewish hatred is an infallible signal that a society is in deep trouble. But Jews and others who are shocked are themselves a symptom of that trouble. They believe that Jew-hatred is part of a wider animus against all minorities. They don’t grasp that antisemitism is uniquely troubling.”
(
Melanie Phillips, article: Antisemitism: the ultimate marker of cultural derangement, 3rd January 2020)

I recently attempted to define antisemitism within the 280 character limit of a Tweet:

Antisemitism isn’t primarily racism: it attacks the *whole* human race. It attempts either to pull man (ben adam) away from God (as in secular/liberal/Socialist/Fascist/Jewish-Atheist antisemitism) or attempts to appropriate God’s choices, as in Christian & Islamic antisemitism.

Mark_Pickles@Twitter

In other words, I maintain that antisemitism is not merely another form of racism, it is anti the whole human race, not least the spiritual condition of the human race, and the soul of every nation.

None of the world’s greatest problems, such as ecological abuse, pollution, nuclear-weapon proliferation, extreme poverty, and the clash of civilisations – and the threat of World War III hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles – can be properly addressed if man either denies his spiritual life, or tries to appropriate the Spirit (Ruach) of our Creator who entered human history a mere 4000 years ago through the People Israel.

Antisemitism has destroyed every nation, bloc of nations, society, church, political party…that has allowed it to “rage unchecked”. Antisemitism can even result in wars and world wars. This almost seems to be a law of Nature, or, perhaps it is indeed, as I suspect, a law of Super-nature: God of Israel.

“Now the LORD said unto Abram: ‘Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12

“Human being” transliterates in the Hebrew as ben adam, or son of Adam, or Son of Man. We are all expected, by eternal God, to polish the mirror that is our eternal soul and become fully human, fully “Son of Man”, fully imago dei. This is in reality impossible of course. We are fallible humans who, even in the most civilised parts of the world, live within our inevitably imperfect collective systems from which we cannot possibly escape, or fail to contribute or advantage from, if we are fully functioning members of society and nation.

Interfaith dialogue or political dialogue,
or sociology, or science, will not solve the
crisis of antisemitism/anti-Israelism

Political ideologues, such as Socialists, generally believe that repairing or replacing our systems will improve the lot of man, but it won’t. Faith in God’s will is not faith in the perfection of political systems, but in the perfection of man in mind and soul and love. Politics cannot make man love God, or his fellow man as image of God (or at least potentially image of God).

I live in the UK, and I believe – that so long as we keep the resurgent antisemitism in check, and the forces of Islamism in check – we are a good and blessed nation.  Our consitutional monarchy has the best possible checks and balances of any system; taxation levels are as fair as they can be; and the balance between a welfare state and personal responsibility, and the balance between secular democracy and established religious authority are about as good as can possibly be.

With the late Sir Roger Scruton, philosopher and a fellow Anglican, who sadly died yesterday age 75, I would argue that we risk losing everything if we see a continuing decline in British Christianity, especially if Islam fills the religious vacuum and asserts its influence on our Christian nation, a nation which is Christian both in constitution and characteristics.

There is a real danger that we become like Sweden, the most atheistic nation in Europe, which according to the EU’s own statistics has – despite Sweden’s low population and high wealth – the highest rate of rape, domestic abuse, and child abuse. And the city of Malmo has earned the title “antisemitic capital of Europe”.  However, I would also say that the intellectual feebleness of our established Church of England today, and its feeble and unconvincing management (not least with regards to child sexual abuse), are very much a part of the reason for decline in British religious life. Furthermore, the contemporary Church of England, and the wider global Anglican Communion, is itself experiencing a resurgence of antisemitism, especially anti-Israelism, and I suspect this is the deep cause of the spiritual rot.  The Church needs new senior management and deeper philosophical theology before we can expect the people to come back, hoping to learn what they don’t already know, rather than a pile of platitudes.  Above all, the Church of England needs to seriously address its institutional antisemitism/anti-Israelism.

[ I do not make charges lightly against the antisemitism in my own church. If the reader is interested in my concerns, I had an Op-Ed on the subject published in the American journal The Algemeiner on November 27 2019. For a longer read, I have written a 55,000 word essay titled “I Accuse – Antisemitism and the Church of England”.  I have provided links to my Algemeiner Op-Ed and to a PDF of my essay at the end of this piece.]

Man has free will, which means of course the free will to declare “God is dead”, and create systems centred  on something other than God. Many such systems have been tried, but these systems everywhere and at all times have led to about three of four generations of curse. Pray, the Jeremy Corbyn movement in Britain is the death throes of Socialism, being as it is about four generations after Vladimir Lenin introduced it as a living reality during World War I.

Of course, one can try to avoid the march of history and the political world altogether, by becoming a hermit in a cave, or a reclusive monk, but – notwithstanding that Christian civilisation is indebted to the scholarship of the medieval monks –  I find nothing convincing in the Christian understanding of God of Israel to suggest that God wants us to be monks or nuns, or to become otherwise detached from the history and geography of the world. The monkish and nunnish establishments – and the religious commitment to nihilistic escapism, virginity and non-reproduction of the human race – were in fact imports from Buddhism in the East, beginning around the 3rd century AD.

It is uniquely through the Hebrews that God revealed the sanctity of Time and history, and of all human being. In the Torah we learn that we are all, man and woman, imaged in God. And it is through the Jews that God our Creator promised to pilot all nations to their true destiny.

Anti-Israelism is the worst form of antisemitism

“On the left, the antisemitism is being fuelled and even led – against Israel – by Jews”.
(M
elanie Phillips, Speaking at the Conference on Jews and Conservatism on October 28, 2018)

There wasn’t space to add “anti-Israelism”  to my Tweeted definition of antisemitism, otherwise I would have done.

Anti-Israelism is antisemitism.

Whereas antisemitism can result in the desire and motivation to harm Jews, anti-Israelism is the desire to extinguish the light unto the nations and to point the world to some idolatrous other thing or city, such as Geneva (the UN), Brussels, or Stalingrad (or whatever the epicentre of Socialism now calls itself). Anti-Israelism is the attempt by the rebellious ego of man to blind the world to our One True God, causing great harm not only to Jews, but to everyone.

[ I’m inclined to prefer the word anti-Israelism to anti-Zionism, because the Zionist case was made and won a century ago, leading to the establishment of the State of Israel. To be “anti-Zionist” is as meaningless and regressive as being “anti-Partition of India”, or “anti-Republic of Ireland”, or “anti-Jersey”.

“Zionism” is history, whereas Israel is living reality, whose health is more important than that of any other nation, and whose well-being is necessary for the well-being of all nations. Israel is the microcosm of the world, and where the world marries up to God.]

Recently Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, has tweeted a list of the UN Human Rights Council condemnations of human rights between 2006 and 2016:

Israel – 68 UN human rights condemnations
Iraq – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Cuba – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Qatar – 0 UN human rights condemnations
China – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Russia – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Turkey – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Somalia – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Pakistan – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Venezuela – 0 UN human rights condemnations
Zimbabwe – 0 UN human rights condemnations … etc, etc

The annual United Nations General Assembly nation-specific condemnations are similar. Typically the UNGA will issue about 20 condemnations of Israel, and a total of 5 or 6 for all the other nations of the world combined!  Israel 20, Rest of the World 5. How outrageous and stupid and incredible and dangerous the UN has allowed itself to become!

Why do the nations so furiously rage together, against Israel?  Why do the people imagine a vain thing?  Why do the leaders of the world – kings, presidents and archbishops – rise up and take counsel together, against the Lord and against His anointed?

I think that the deep psychological and spiritual reasons that the world is obsessively anti-Israel – a good nation – and generally disinterested in every other nation – including the many institutionally evil nations – is the explicit rejection of God.

There is explicit rejection of God by secularists (including many secular Jews), and there is the rejection of God by many (if not the vast majority) of Christians and Muslims through their attempted appropriation of God’s choices, and God’s history and plan for the destiny of the nations, centred on Jerusalem.

Because Christianity and Islam both have a vision of a Jerusalem-centred Apocalypse (or unveiling) Christian and Muslim pride-and-ego has the propensity to appropriate both Jerusalem and Time itself (I will say more on the appropriation of Time).

Only recently has the Roman Catholic Church repudiated its claims to have superseded God’s eternal covenants with the Jews, largely through the leadership of John Paul II. John Paul II was more or less “dual covenant”, i.e. God’s covenants with the Jews are eternal and unconditional, whereas we Christians follow the more generalised “New” covenant in our faith and commitment to God of Israel. But I know many Catholics who remain “supersessionist”, and, contrary to John Paul II, believe that Jews should be converted to Christianity.  There are many anti-Israelist Catholics, including, it seems to me, Pope Francis himself.

I suggest that the Church should commit to converting Christians away from anti-Semitism/anti-Israelism, and to encourage secularised Jews to convert not to Christianity, but to remember Jerusalem and re-convert to Judaism, because as the Jewish thinker Melanie Phillips remarks, many Jews have lost the plot and have been seduced by secularist philosophies and politics and the fool’s paradise we call “liberalism”.

The most potent and dangerous anti-Israelists are Jews. They are potent and dangerous because every Gentile antisemite under the Sun can deny his or her antisemitism by siding with a “Jew”, and by showing solidarity with the Jewish anti-Israelists who want to unleash Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on the State of Israel.

Before the General Election, hundreds of British high-profile/high-achieving Jews (one of whom I know personally) tried to convince the rest of us that Jeremy Corbyn is not an antisemite, nay he is the best thing that has happened to British Jewry.  Suddenly, scholars and famous people whom most of us never realised were halachically Jewish until Corbyn appeared, were writing joint open letters to The Guardian in support of Corbyn, Marxism and Trotskyism, and telling the BBC interviewers, “as-a-Jew, I say that Corbyn is not antisemitic”.

The Socialist Jon Lansman, a self-identifying Jew, led the notoriously anti-Israelist Labour “Momentum” movement: the very messianic mob movement that drove Corbyn into Socialist power. In fact, three of the four founding members of the Momentum cult are Jews. Other high-profile or academic Corbyn-justifying Jews in Britain I can recall off the top of my head are John Bercow, Michael Rosen (BBC), Dr David Graeber, Glyn Secker, Jackie Walker (who claims to be Jewish), Miriam Margolyes OBE, Alexei Sayle, and Mike Leigh OBE. And former Labour leader Ed Milliband, anti-Israelist, is a secular Jew whose god is Socialism, and who arguably set the Labour Party on its present course before Corbyn rose to power. Ed Milliband was Corbyn’s John the Baptist.

My 22-year-old daughter, a student of social policy, asked me how can Corbyn be antisemitic when he has so many Jewish friends, and even the Speaker John Bercow, speaking “as-a-Jew”, says that he does not think Corbyn is antisemitic? She has a point. Corbyn is perhaps not anti-Jew, but without a shadow of a doubt he is anti-Israelist, as are his Jewish friends such as those I have listed above.

Of course, it should not surprise anyone that the most fervent and effective supporters of the Socialist project to “free Palestine” in order to destroy Israel through violent means are in fact Socialist Jews.  Socialists generally blame Israel for all the world’s ills.  And therefore, Socialist Jews are often especially keen to prove they hate the Jewish State of Israel in order to be fully accepted around the table of the Socialists.

From the outset, the whole point of the Socialist philosophy of the atheist Karl Marx – an halachically Jewish grandson of a rabbi on his mother’s side – is to replace faith in God of Israel by faith in man once man has violently broken free of the systems (such as the British monarchy) whose appeal to authority is God of Israel.  Karl Marx in his essay On the Jewish Question explains why the world must break away from the Abrahamic covenant and accept the historical inevitability of the materialist dialectic and the class struggle.  Marx wrote that, “the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism”.  Jewish Socialists have always opposed religious attachment to Israel:  the revolutionary Bundists of Poland and Russia wanted Atheistic Communism, not Monotheistic Zionism.

Marx was of course an antisemitic false prophet, whose philosophy deceived not only half the Jews but half the surface of the planet.

The English philosopher Bertrand Russell, although an atheist, could at least see that Marxism was a false religion, a spurious offshoot of Christianity and Millennialism. In The History of Western Philosophy, Russell plots out Marx’s pseudo-Christian schema as follows:

God of Israel                      >>           Dialectical Materialism

The Messiah                      >>           Marx

The Elect                            >>           The Proletariat

The Church                        >>           The Communist Party

The Second Coming         >>           The Revolution

Hell                                     >>           Punishment of the Capitalists

The Millennium               >>           The Communist Commonwealth

And so Socialists (including Jewish Socialists), Christians and Muslims alike are guilty of appropriating Time, believing they will take ownership of the End of Time.

For Christians and Muslims the End of Time is the “Apocalypse”, or the “Messianic Age”, which of course, is to spread from its centre at Jerusalem according to Christians and Muslims.  Generally, Christians want to own it, and Muslims want to own it.  It’s a matter of pride and honour.

Owning the End of Time

Everyone today – secularist or monotheist – realises that the world is shrinking, and coming into ever more intense unity and interaction.

The very fact that we have just the one Internet, one World Wide Web – all wrapped in English-language meta-languages such as HTML – is evidence enough of this progress towards unity. And the English language is the world’s first truly universal language.

According to a report on “Big Data” by IBM (published on its website a few years ago), “90% of all the data in the world has been created in the last 2 years alone”. Much of this data is either written in English, or wrapped in English, because English is the international language of computing and data interrogation.

In other words, the oneness of things, which implies a kind of finality and permanence to things – or an end to history and its Hegelian ‘dialectic’ – is becoming obvious to all.

The French Catholic theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (d. 1955) saw this unifying and intensification of all things, through technology, communications and exponential population growth leading to what he called the “Omega Point”.  For Teilhard – like the evolutionary scientist Jean Baptiste Lamarck – evolution is not entirely chance and randomness through an innate struggle for survival, but is goal-oriented.  (I do have many reservations about the thinking of Teilhard, but he did help parts of the Roman Catholic Church break out of its narrow thinking, paranoia, and world-denying theology.)

That English is the first and last universal language is now obvious. It cannot be undone. English as the lingua franca cannot die out like other lingua franca, such as Greek and Latin.

The language of the final state of things is not, as we read in even English Bibles, “alpha and omega” (Greek), but A and Z (English).

The two most important languages in the world are Hebrew and English: Hebrew because it is the Holy Language – centred on the Holiest of Holy Names we are to hallow – and English, because English is the universal language.  English is indeed the language of the heavens, not least in aerospace.  With English, our universal language, we ascend above Babel to the sky, or ciel in French, which, like other Latin-based languages, uses the same word for sky and heaven. (In Biblical times, the sky/clouds was thought to be the “first heaven” of the seven heavens.)  Whether our pilots take off from Iowa, Iran or India, they all must, and do, communicate in English, the language of air-traffic control, as it is of international shipping.

Other aspects of civilisation that have obviously entered into what we might call the universal final state – i.e. it is inconceivable that they can ever be replaced – are Hindu-Arabic numerals and, in music, the equal temperament system of tuning invented by J.S. Bach. (Had Bach not dared to slightly deviate from the mathematically just harmony, music as we know it today, with large orchestras of many instruments, able to change key mid piece, would be impossible.  Furthermore, we have now all been ‘earwashed’ to accept harmony that to Montiverdi and Purcell would have sounded wrong: slightly flat at the perfect fifths.)

If you agree with me that such things as the English language and Arabic numerals are already truly embedded in the final state – i.e. it is inconceivable that there will a future age, or aeon, of civilisation in which English is not the universal language and Arabic numerals not the universal language of mathematics –we can begin to think what else might find itself permanently established in the final state.

At the risk of sounding gooey and “kumbya”, we might look to the Jerusalem/Zion centred prophecy of Micah

“…the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, And it shall be exalted above the hills; And peoples shall flow unto it. And many nations shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, And to the house of the God of Jacob; And He will teach us of His ways, And we will walk in His paths’; For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He shall judge between many peoples, And shall decide concerning mighty nations afar off; And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruninghooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; And none shall make them afraid; For the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken. For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, But we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.”
From Micah Chapter 4, JPS Tanakh

Micah’s prophecy is so similar to that of his contemporaneous 8th century prophet Isaiah that surely one borrowed from the other.  It is interesting to note also that Isaiah believed that so long as there is pollution in our languages – our words – there will be pollution, and desertification, on Earth. Healing language heals all things, which is obvious if you think about it, because we think in language, command in language, follow orders in language, and persuade others, and ourselves, in language.

We cannot re-green Earth with strategies to re-green Earth. Rather, as Jesus commanded: “Hallow the Name” and “Seek the Kingdom first”, and then the rest falls into place.  This is the Faith.

If Micah, Isaiah, and the many other prophets with similar visions really were seeing the final and healing state things – I hope they were – then there is no valid Christian or Islamic supersessionism, and no Socialism or scientism supersession (we will return to the scientific threat). No, Israel, and her observant Jews, becomes, uniquely, the light unto the nations.

“If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

“His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

“The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jews; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

Mark Twain, “Concerning the Jews” Harpers Magazine, March 1898

Contemporary Christianity and Islam – especially contemporary Islam – need to come up with theological philosophies that persuade their leaders and followers to change course. Somehow, the world’s negative obsession with Israel needs to be turned upside down, into positive obsession and encouragement. The ship of fools we call mankind must accept its navigator: the Jews. And, frankly, contemporary Jews, especially of the diaspora, must not forget Jerusalem and must make a better fist of navigating us towards the goal: the ‘End’ of Time, or rather the Age to Come: the Peace on Earth: Shalom.

The Battle for Jerusalem

“Salvation is of the Jews”. 
Words of Jesus according to John 4:22

The last piece I wrote was titled The Battle of Westminster is over. The Battle for Jerusalem is about to begin. I published it on my blog between Christmas and New Year. It was topical at least, because on 3 January the USA took out the Iranian head of the Quds Force, General Qasem Soleimani.

“Quds” is the Arabic for Jerusalem. In other words, the Quds Force is the Jerusalem Force. Its purpose is not to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran, rather it is a special unit whose purpose is “liberate” Arab lands, and ultimately wipe Israel off the map and forcefully take Jerusalem, as its name implies.

The Quds force is tasked with fomenting war and supporting any group that shares Iran’s aims of destroying Israel, which according to post-revolution Iran is the great metaphysical enemy, or the “little Satan”, alongside the USA, the “great Satan”. The Quds Force, in other words, is a terrorist force, which supports terrorist factions in many parts of the world, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria, and the Houthis in Yemen, whose blasphemous slogan is: “God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam”.

The BBC, the EU, HM Government, and HM’s Official Opposition do not take such threats seriously, but, thankfully, the USA and Israel do.  Ideas of “diplomacy” and “de-escalation” and “nuclear deal” with the Islamic Republic of Iran are dangerously absurd and naive.  Diplomacy is impossible and immoral with people who are ideologically committed to the belief that Israel is Iblis incarnate. Diplomacy is no more possible with the Iranian regime today than it would been with Germany after it democratically elected Hitler as Chancellor.

Few Western leaders, thinkers and journalists seem to understand, or want to understand, the ‘Apocalyptic’ or end-time ideology that fuels the Islamists’ obsession with Israel and with Jews. Few in the West seem to understand that the Islamic violence of our times, Arab, Iranian, Turkish and Far Eastern, is seeking appropriation of the end state of history, and this includes violence not only against Christians and Jews and other faith groups, but all the inter-Islamic violence, particularly inter-Arab violence (often encouraged and financed by Iran and Turkey).  Each Arab, Persian or Turkish faction seems desperately, now, to be trying to assert its entitlement to be the true flag bearer of, and the permanent ruling body of, the final state of things.

This right to own the final state, to appropriate Time, is the very founding 20th-century philosophy – “Islamism” – of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is to be achieved through the obliteration of the State of Israel through a combination of physical violence and what Dr Richard Landes calls “cognitive warfare”*.

In other words, Islamist propaganda, strategic, systematic and often very clever and nuanced, is spread through the Christian and secular West – including to schools, and universities especially those benefitting from Gulf-state funding – where the Church and the people are invariably eager to revive the millennia-old habit of blaming the Jews (and now the sole Jewish nation) for everything.

In this cognitive warfare, the Church, the EU, the UN, governments and NGOs are all too eager to believe what the Arabs, Turks and Iranians want to tell them about Israel and the Jews. Germany in particular seems to be an eager audience for Arab and Iranian propaganda, perhaps not surprisingly: Germany has been by far the most evil nation in modern history, and if Israel can be made out to be as bad if not worse, then not only does Germany lose its place at the top of the evil list, but Germany’s animosity to the Jews in the 1930s, and its democratic election of Hitler, can be partly justified.

Faith in God of Israel informs us that all things reach their final state through Israel. Therefore the Brussels-centred Socialist/Humanist project we now call the European Union is a false goal of history. The Europhiles and the UN-philes and the Socialists will be proved wrong.  And no-one likes to be proved wrong, and that he has been dedicating his life into trying to create something that God will ultimately toss in the fire with the deadwood.

As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously remarked to the Socialist leaders of the EU bloc: “You cannot build Jerusalem in Brussels”.

As I have often noted elsewhere, the very word Shem (that we find in the word antisemitism, or anti-shem-itism) is permanently housed in Jerusalem. “Build me a House…”, the Lord instructed Solomon. Jerusalem/Mount Zion is as much the focus and goal of the last book of the Jewish Bible (2 Chronicles) as it is of the Christian Bible (Revelation or Apocalypse).

The Islamists call the Holy City of Jerusalem al-Quds, and believe it that it will not be holy until they have taken it. There is a deep Islamist realisation that the appropriation of Jerusalem is the appropriation of everything, including the End of Time and the Age to Come.  And they are right; to appropriate Jerusalem is to appropriate everything, which is why God is to appropriate her – nay “marry” her – only God, and not Muslims, and not Christians.

Jerusalem is in fact the microcosm of the world. It always was, and always will be. And when there is peace in Jerusalem, there will be peace in the world.
It will come, dropping slow.
The centre will hold.
Horseman, pass by.

The Four Horseman of the Non Apocalypse

Whereas the Socialists, the Muslims and the Christians have tried to appropriate Time and History, the scientists, since Einstein, have tried to deny there is Time, and to deny that human being, ben adam, is human being.  Time becomes relative if you think only  sentient beings on planets or in space can measure it, i.e. that there is no God Almighty who has the measure of all things and is the measure of all things.

As I wrote in my previous piece, 1919 Vision: Albert Einstein’s Gravitation Lens, the gravitational physicist Stephen Hawking came to derive: “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies”.  Speak for yourself, Hawking.

The four most prominent New Atheists came together as “The Four Horseman of the Non-Apocalypse”. How hilarious!

The most influential New Atheist of all was, in fact, not Richard Dawkins but the gravitational physicist Albert Einstein. And – I know I am making a big claim here – by the end of 2020 I expect to have turned him over.  Yes, I’m coming from nowhere, but so did Einstein (an administrator in a Swiss patent office).

Je m’explique

Earlier in this piece I talked about some things that are clearly going to find themselves in the “end state”, including the English language, Arabic numerals (not least the ṣifr, or zero of our binary logic), and the infinitely versatile modern musical harmony – slightly flattened from the just – that came out of J.S. Bach’s Das Wohltemperirte Clavier.

And so what paradigm of gravity will make it to the end?  Not, I promise you, the Einsteinian paradigm, not “general relativity”, in fact not any form of relativity.

The way we understand gravity is overwhelmingly important. The way man conceives gravity sets the paradigm of everything else, from Aristotelian to Galilean to Newtonian to Einsteinian…
All will be revealed.  The existence of God will become as obvious as the existence of gravity.  One thing is for certain, I will overthrow this kind of nonsense:

“Because there is a law [sic] such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing… Spontaneous creation [sic] is the reason [sic] there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist… It is not necessary to invoke God.”

The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, 2010

We will see that, in fact, the gravitation physicist Sir Isaac Newton – a Church of England monotheist who, like me, rejected the dogma of the Trinity – was, where it matters, far closer to the Truth than Einstein.

Whereas Einstein was a reluctant Zionist (and friend of the de facto world-Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann), Isaac Newton was arguably the first famous and enthusiastic English Zionist, who believed the Jewish diaspora’s survival, despite a history of continuous persecution, forced conversion, and frequent deadly attacks, to be miraculous and “the work of providence”.

Newton believed that there would be a call to rebuild Jerusalem at about the end of the 19th century, and the Jews would return to Israel after their ** “captivity of almost 2000 years”, following which the end of the age would arrive between 2000 and 2050 (cf. “The Mystery of this Restitution of all Things”: Isaac Newton on the Return of the Jews, Dr. Stephen Snobelen, to which I have linked at the end of this piece).

Newton was the first modern cosmologist, in that he was the first man to realise that there is a universal and universalising force in the Cosmos – that we call “gravity” (which, for Newton, was the very breath of God).  He arrived at his theories of the cosmos not only through mathematics and his telescope set on the heavnes, but through his studies of the divinely-revealed geometries of Solomon’s Temple: the micro-cosmos on Earth. Indeed, Newton learned – and studied the Bible in – the Hebrew language, determined to discover what he called “the sacred cubit of the Jews”.

Even in the relationship of the square Holy of Holies to the rectangular Holy Place (same width, but twice the length) we find Newton’s “inverse-square law”, which we still use (with some minor tweaks) to calculate how to navigate through the solar system, and land objects on the moon and other celestial bodies. I also use the inverse-square law in my own professional background: electronics engineering and radar. In fact, since the discovery of gravitational waves in 2016 (for which three scientists including two Jews shared the Nobel Prize) we now know that the geometry of gravity is analogous to the geometry of sine waves, which is the geometry of music. This does not surprise me, because the Jerusalem Temple orchestra was as important as the geometry of the Temple itself.

Newton was, in fact, trying, like Johannes Kepler a generation before him, to reconcile music, and the 7 notes of the diatonic scale to everything.

Good music (of the muse) is of course a form of prayer, a form of communion with God. Just as the greatest of our historic synagogues, churches, cathedrals and mosques share a holy geometry (which, as I have explained elsewhere, happens to be musical geometry) with the Jerusalem Temple, our orchestras, and the evolution of musical instruments, can trace their histories back to the Middle East, and indeed to the great Temple orchestra in Jerusalem. The last Psalm, Psalm 150, describes the time at which Earth is to be filled with music, in which even the creatures join in the song. Psalm 150 is really the musical direction for the Temple orchestra, which builds up into an eschatological choral climax for the world, or as we read in the very last lines of our very last Song:

“Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.
Hallelujah.”

Psalm 150:6

————————————

Photograph of the notes of Sir Isaac Newton, the man who gave the
world its first empirical concept of a single universalising force in all the
matter of the cosmos. Newton has struck through the Latin and replaced
it with Hebrew: the second (and hushed) verse of Shema Yisra’el:

“Blessed is the Name of His glorious kingdom for all eternity”.

It is fitting that Newton’s theological work, penned in Cambridge and
hidden for almost 300 years, is now in Jerusalem, at the National
Library of Israel. Most of it did not become available to the public until the 1990s.


Further reading:

* Dr. Richard Landes, Historian, on “Cognitive Warfare”:

The Soft Underbelly of the West: A Brief Introduction to Jihadi Cognitive Warfare in the 21st Century

** Dr. Stephen Snobelen, Science Historian, on Isaac Newton’s Zionism:

https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/isaac-newton-on-the-return-of-the-jews.pdf

Mark Pickles, Op-Ed on Antisemitism in the Church of England:

While Acknowledging Past Antisemitism, Church of England Fails to Right Historical Wrongs

Mark Pickles, I Accuse – Antisemitism and the Church of England (55,000 words):

https://markpickles.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/i-accuse-5.pdf

 

 

 

 

Posted in Antisemitism, Christianity, Gravity, Israel, Judaism, Musicology, Political philosophy, Science, Theology, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Battle of Westminster is over. The Battle for Jerusalem is about to begin.


“I bring you, incredibly, greetings from the front line in the battle against anstisemitism:
the front line: the Labour Party.”

John Mann MP, speech to the CST, 27th February 2019

The Labour MP John Mann went on to say, in his speech to the Community Security Trust (CST), that “we must take the battle to the antisemites, and we must win”. He has subsequently earned himself a peerage: “Lord Mann” recently entered the upper chamber as an independent, tasked as Advisor to the British Government on Antisemitism.
Mazel tov!

Although the war against global antisemitism/anti-Israelism is today more intense than ever, I would argue that the battle against Corbyn-led antisemitism is won.  Antisemitism will remain present in all areas of British society, left and right, and Christian and Islamic and Secular, but it has been kicked out of the mainstream of British politics. No longer will we see images such as this at annual conferences of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition:

labourparty3

The images above are of an ex-Labour Party.  If the 2020 Labour Party conference produces images such as this, we can assume that the Labour Party is as permanently dead as the Monty Python parrot.  And now the Labour Party is under formal Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigation for antisemitism, Labour will soon find it impossible to continue publicly calling for the destruction of the State of Israel with chants such as, “In our millions… we are Palestinians”, and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.

Labour had promised that, on winning the general election, it would review EHRC, on the grounds that it is “not truly independent”. Well they would say that, wouldn’t they. Socialist republics never accept authority other than that of the Socialist republic.  For Socialists, the only limiting moral imperative is Socialism. Britain never, never, never will be Socialist. And the checks and balances of our constitutional monarchy sworn to God Almighty will continue to make Britain one of the best nations, if not the best nation, of the world in which to live for all people of good will. (I suspect that, had Sir Winston Churchill been looking over my shoulder, he would have suggested recasting the last sentence, and ending it on a preposition, but I am a former Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) for whom rules is rules.)

Denied the opportunity to undermine EHRC, the Labour Party is now using its funds to pay top City lawyers to protect the Corbynites from charges of law-breaking antisemitism being unveiled by EHRC, and these lawyers are not going to allow Labour to continue to fly the flag of Hamas and Fatah, committed to wiping Israel off the map. Yes, the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas and Fatah (aka Palestinian Authority), but this makes them no less antisemitic1 than the Germans who democratically elected Hitler as Chancellor.

So long as the majority of Labour Party members continue to display disgust for the United Kingdom – and red-white-and-blue – and continue to wave the four colours of pan-Arab imperialism, the majority of British people will turn their back on Labour. It is inconceivable that those of us who have served in Her Majesty’s British Forces, and/or have family who have served, or take pride in Britain and British history, could ever conceivably vote for a mainstream political party led by an atheist republican who thinks the annually televised Queen’s Christmas Message is “on in the morning”. How in heaven’s name did Corbyn ever think he was going to be able to fulfil the role of Her Majesty’s first minister?

Another thing that Labour had promised to do, come the revolution, was to educate children with the ‘truth’ about the British Empire, and how we have historically oppressed everyone. This is based on the entirely false premise that the great march of history, and civilisations, would have been possible without empires such as the British Empire and, indeed, the Islamic empires.

Had Christianity not been imperialistic, it would have been crushed by much worse empires, such as the Vandals, the Goths, the Celts, the French (or “Galatians”), the Visigoths, the Huns, the Vikings, the Mongols… who would have overwhelmed Christianity had the Roman Empire itself not converted to Christianity, and had Islam not continued the monotheistic civilising of Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Had the British not had an empire, England would have been the subject nation of an empire, as it was until the English, and the English Church, separated off from the mother-ship Norman Empire that rapidly conquered England after 1066. Eventually, in the 15th century, and the reign of King Henry IV, even the English kings and bishops started to speak English rather than Norman French.

More recently, had Britain not had an empire, it would have become ruled by the French empires and the Bonaparte dynasty, and, more recently still, by the Third Reich. And yet more recently, had Britain not had a strong empire, we would surely have been overrun by the Socialist Bloc: the biggest Eurasian empire since the reign of Genghis Khan, especially before the Sino-Soviet split of the early 1960s. As for the lamentable Slave Trade of the British Empire, Britain came to lead the world in the abolition of slavery, at least in the Christian West. The Islamic slave trade was just as widespread as the Christian slave trade, and, in many parts of the world, it has not yet been abolished.

There are many things that have been worse than the British Empire, and are potentially much worse than the British Empire, such as the would-be pan-Arab empire, for which the British Labour Party has been gunning since the rise of Jeremy Corbyn.

The last Muslim empire/caliphate was of course that of the Turks – the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate – which ruled much of Arab-populated lands for six centuries until World War I, during which, in 1917, the British took Jerusalem. Since then, the Arabs have dreamed of a new pan-Arab empire/caliphate. They created the many new Arab nations that we now see on the map, and created flags of black, green, red, white (suspiciously the colours of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse), representing the historic empires of the Abbasids, the Umayyads, the Fatimids, and the Hashemites.

The Arab Bloc, despite sitting on its huge wealth of oil and gas, is oppressive, corrupt, failing, and genocidally antisemitic. And, as I have written elsewhere, it is the contemporary Arab world’s deep antisemitism that is the primary cause of its failings, just as, within living memory, the antisemitism in Christian Europe very nearly led to Europe’s complete self-destruction.

The great irony of Labour’s obsessive opposition to the State of Israel, coupled with Labour’s contempt for empires, is that the restitution of Israel as an independent sovereign nation was – as far as I can see – the first great anti-imperialist political act in history.

If truth be told, the People Israel, since the days of the Pharaohs, were, all along, the nagging voice of anti-imperialism. Israel is to be light unto the nations, not the light to empires, caliphates, and Socialist blocs, and not, dare I say it, the European bloc (which is why I support Brexit on theological grounds). Nations are good. Nations, not empires or blocs of nations, are the future. The best of every nation could only have come out of that nation, whereas the worst of every nation can, and does, come from everywhere. God’s vision of history is the healing of the nations (from the “leaves of the tree of life” according to Christian scripture), centred on Israel, nay Jerusalem.  There is no Israel or Jerusalem in Corbyn’s grey vision.  In Corbyn’s visions, Jerusalem becomes “Quds” to keep sweet either the Syrian Socialists or Iran, as enlightened atheistic Socialism foments the dissolving of national borders: imperialism in other words, based on a philosophy as boring and as dangerous and as culturally-alien as the USSR’s politically-sanctioned “Scientific Atheism”.

Jerusalem

One good thing that has come out of the Battle of Westminster is that an increasing number of us are now battle-hardened, and in good morale, for the global war against antisemitism.  And we will not cease from mental fight.  By all means take us on, but I advise you to remember what happened when Prime Minister Tony Blair believed he could face up to the Women’s Institute.

I suggest to my Jerusalem-sighted British compatriots that the next targets are France and Germany, the two nations which, a century ago, were the intellectual and theological source of the antisemitic plague that was to overwhelm Europe. Despite Angela Merkel’s consistent philo-semitic virtue signalling, Germany’s attempts to undermine Israel and Jerusalem are relentless.

Today, Germany, and its “Christian Democratic” Government, does ban the teaching of Hitler and Holocaust Denial, but we do not need to dig too deeply to see that, behind the scenes, Germany demonises Israel and supports the nations that teach Hitler’s philosophy and teach Holocaust Denial (and other spurious forms of historical revisionism). And I’m afraid to say that the cowardly Government of the UK has largely followed Germany’s EU lead, perhaps because the UK is more interested in recycling the petrodollar than saving Israel and the Jews, and saving Jerusalem from the Al-Qudists. Let us hope that, once we are freed from the vassalage of the EU, Prime Minister Boris Johnson will turn his back on Berlin and face Jerusalem. As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously remarked:  “You cannot build Jerusalem in Brussels”.

Germany gives much moral and financial support to the Palestinian irredentists (despite the many $billions that are already pumped in by Iran and the Gulf States), tens of $millions of which have been used to build a sophisticated network of dozens of attack tunnels in the Gaza Strip. The larger tunnels cost around $3 million to construct, and use tens of thousands of tons of concrete, funds and materials that Hamas has no intention of using for the amelioration of the people, because without suffering Gazans, the global propaganda battle is lost, and the Gazans themselves will be less motivated to destroy Israel, in accordance with the manifesto/covenant on which Hamas was elected, in cahoots with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and backed by Iran, Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is why the Gazans are walled out of Israel, and walled out of Egypt (where, it seems, the Muslim Brotherhood is losing its influence).

Hillel

The above is a recent screenshot of a Tweet by Hillel Neuer, who is an expert in international law, and is Executive Director of UN Watch. Last year, at the United Nations General Assembly, Germany condemned Israel 15 times, and the nations of the rest of the world 5 times. This is not newsworthy, because it is typical of Germany’s voting pattern every year.

Why, one asks, are the post-Nazi and post-Stasi German Christians acting in an international forum in precisely the same obsessively anti-Jewish way as pre-Nazi, Nazi and Stasi German Christians? Has the anti-Israelist German Government of “Christian Democrats” scrubbed out every instance of “Israel” from its Old Testament? Why is Christian Germany still committed to the Theology of Contempt, and Supersessionism? Why has Germany decided to give backing to all the nations that support the Mujahedeen’s goal to make ‘Palestine’ judenrein from “the river to the sea”? Surely, Christian Germany of all nations should be leading the world in the battle against antisemitism? Or perhaps the Prophet Jeremiah was right: a leopard cannot change its spots.

Next year, when HRH The Prince of Wales visits Israel, including Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, I don’t want to see him smiling and shaking hands with the head of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas, as did his son Prince William the Naïve. Shaking hands with a man who is committed to genocidal anti-Semitism is not peace-making.  Abbas consistently preaches that all Jews are “descended from pigs and apes” and that therefore the presence of any Jew in Jerusalem is defiling ‘his’ capital city.  Read the work of my good Christian friend Dexter Van Zile, researcher at Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), who will back up my knowledge of Abbas and Fatah.

“Wales”, Sir, read the Fatah Charter for heaven’s sake before you visit ‘occupied’ Jerusalem in 2020: it is as ideologically antisemitic as Mein Kampf, and as unhinged as anything that came out of the East Germany in which Merkel – clergyman’s daughter – was born and bred.

The Battle for the Shem

Few in Britain today seem to understand what a great and metaphysically-evil threat antisemitism is to mankind. Similarly, about 90 years ago, Winston Churchill was one of only a few thinkers who seemed to understand the threat. This was perhaps in part, who knows, a result of the Jerusalem-Temple focus of his freemasonry.

The battle against antisemitism, for those of us who truly know its significance, is the battle for the Sem, or Shem, implied in the very word anti-Sem-itism. And the Shem, the Name, was housed in Jerusalem, is housed in Jerusalem, and forever will be housed in Jerusalem, the City of David.

Although today, in the Year of our Lord 2019, the Jewish leadership in Britain has understood the threat of Labour’s antisemitism, I don’t think it understands the deeper spiritual threat, the threat to our very soul. As Melanie Phillips recently wrote2, the British diaspora is in danger of losing the plot, “as the leadership of Britain’s Jewish community is itself marching it towards the edge of the cultural cliff”. Similarly, I wrote an op-ed3 a month ago for The Algemeiner, explaining that the Church of England has lost the plot, having publish a “teaching document” on antisemitism that teaches, and provides resources for, anti-Israelism.

But there are deeply insightful thinkers in Britain, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, who seem to me to know what is required, not least Melanie Phillips, Jonathan Hoffman (@jhoffman1), Joy Wolfe, Fiyaz Mughal, Ghanem Nuseibeh, Colonel Richard Kemp, Kay Wilson (@kishkushkay), David Collier (@mishtal), Lord Mann, Lord Pickles, Rabbi Lord Sacks, and Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, to name but a few of the few. Sadly we are not the many, but we will win for the sake of everyone and everything.  No-one is perfect, but these are the people with whom I could imagine wanting to help Britain to fight its way out of the British intellectual trench when the Almighty blows the whistle.

All the evidence leads to Zion, or at least it will do as the world comes into the knowledge that God the Creator, God of Israel, Lord of History, Almighty King of the Universe, rules.  The knowledge that God rules will become as obvious as the knowledge that “the waters cover the sea”.  Of course, someone will need to turn over Einstein’s 19194 General Theory of Relativity, through which the West came to believe that everything, from gender to language to space and time, are relative. I think that Einstein’s atheistic paradigm will be overturned, and not through the language of the scientific elite, but through the language that, in the words of Lord Ernest Rutherford, “can be explained to a barmaid”.

Time and Space and Language are not relative to God, and therefore must not be relative to us.  Support Israel.  Support Jerusalem.  I say to all British Jews who are truly interested in defeating anti-Shem-itism, remember where the Shem, HaShem, is eternally housed.  Remember where the Shekinah is eternally housed.  To all British Christians I say, hallow the Name.  Do not take the Name in vain.  Do not try to appropriate God’s eternal covenants with the Jews and the Land of Israel.  Do not be anti-Shem. Do not blaspheme against the Spirit (Ruach) of God Almighty.  Do not attempt to undermine the Spirit of History, and of Time, and of Geography.

The meaning of “House” and “Name” (King Solomon, son of King David, was commanded to build a House for the Name) are huge theological topics, that I cannot possibly deal with here. But in Westminster, in the centre of the Houses of Parliament is the Lobby (separating the two houses); in the very centre of Lobby, on the floor, is a huge octagonal mosaic, around whose border are Latin words from the Psalm 127 of King David of the Tribe of Judah:

“Unless the Lord builds the House its builders labour in vain.”
Psalm 127:1

Chag Chanukah Sameach.  Happy New Year.  God Save the Queen.

 


1  https://markpickles.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/the-arab-israeli-conflict-made-simple/

2  https://www.melaniephillips.com/political-auto-immune-disease-diaspora-jews/

3  https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/11/27/while-acknowledging-past-antisemitism-church-of-england-fails-to-right-historical-wrongs/

4  https://markpickles.wordpress.com/2019/12/10/1919-vision-albert-einsteins-gravitational-lens/

 

 

 

Posted in Antisemitism, Christianity, Gravity, Israel, Judaism, Political philosophy, Science, Theology, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why we must fear, challenge, and expunge the word “Islamophobia”

1. The Big Picture

Some of my best friends are Muslims. Seriously. I am born and bred in Bradford. The man pictured here, the late Professor Syed Hasan Askari, is a Twelver Shi’ite, whom I consider an eternal friend. In the mid 1990s, we would often say together the Lord’s Prayer in English, and then the Fatiha in Arabic, repeatedly, back and forth, as a kind of spiritual exercise.  Hasan, an academic philosopher, was considered anhasan expert and pioneer in interfaith dialogue. He would encourage Muslims to say and revere the Lord’s Prayer. Although Muslims are unlikely to attribute gender (such as “Father”) to God, Hasan believed that this prayer, taught by the young Jew Jesus of Nazareth, is universally valuable and unique.

Since my conversion from atheism to monotheism at age 30 in the early 90s, I have made the effort to come to know a lot about Islam, and a lot about Judaism, and a lot about my own Christian faith (in the Church of England). And in view of the fact that the history of these three great monotheistic faiths is the fabric of the Providence of God – God the Creator, God the Lord of History, God of Israel – I believe that all adherents should explore what it is in these three great faiths that has contributed to civilisation and learning, and has made us all who we are.

I happen to love Islam at its intellectual and spiritual heights. I don’t expect everyone to love it. I expect many to hate it, and I know many people who do.  Similarly, I don’t expect everyone to like Christianity.  There are oppressive forms of Christianity I hate, just as there are oppressive forms of Islam I hate.  I have friends who are lapsed Christians who hate all Christianity with a passion.  I work in science, and have colleagues who hate all religion.  Fearing Islam is fine.  Fearing Christianity is fine.  Telling God that He does not exist, that He is a delusion, is fine: we allow it in our liberal democracy.  To privately hate anyone or any group is allowed, but to encourage the public hatred of Muslims or Christians or any group is not allowed, and that is why we have laws in the UK to protect us from hate speech.

Judaism – the faith of a small tribe, the salt of the earth, comprising today only a small fraction of 1% of the global population – owes its survival to Islam.  For much of the history of the past 1400 years, it was simply not possible for Jews to survive in Christendom.  The Cairo Genizah for example, stored Jewish texts continuously for a thousand years from the 9th century to the 19th century.  Yes, there were good Sultans and oppressive Sultans, and some Islamic empires were worse than others, but there is nowhere in Christendom, certainly not in Britain, where genizot could have survived continuously for anything like a thousand years.  Furthermore, Islam took the brunt of Genghis Khan’s attempt to take over the whole of the known world.  As it is, the Mongols reached as far west as the gates of Vienna. And so Islam arguably saved Christianity too.

2.  The overwhelming importance of language 

In my monotheistic faith, there is nothing but words.  The very Creation is words – God’s words – that we describe and categorise with words, just as, in our Genesis allegory, Adam (man) is commanded to name the animals and the birds.  The name we give to things matters, especially to ourselves.  In my faith, as in the Jewish faith, we are named, eternally, as individuals in “the Name of God”, in whom all human being (ben adam) has sanctity.  There could not possibly be a better moral philosophy of the nature of man than our Imago Dei received in the Torah (or, Muslims believe, in the Quran).

We think in language; we educate and communicate in language, written and spoken, and what we think determines what we do and what we try to persuade others to do.  Amongst our Creator’s first dramatic revelations of His all-centring presence in the history of the world was the aurally received Torah by the People Israel at Sinai, in the Holy Language.  Similarly, I argue that the first day in the history of the Church was at the first Jewish festival of Shavuot (or Pentecost) in Jerusalem when, according to Luke’s Acts, seventeen of the world’s living languages miraculously descended on Mount Zion.  Knowledge of God of Israel was to be spread in all languages, “from Jerusalem to the ends of the Earth”.

I am a scientist/engineer, but I disagree with the consensus in contemporary cosmology, which insists that everything is fundamentally mathematics (a philosophical atheistic or Deistic school of mathematics known today as “mathematical Platonism”).

“And God said… and it was”.  Indeed, the reason that the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle hated the theory of Big Bang – and why he coined “Big Bang” as his derogatory rejection of the theory – is because it sounded to him like it had come from “the first page of Genesis” with its “singular” source of Creation. (Astronomy is another field to which we are indebted to Islam, which developed the science of optics centuries before Galileo designed and constructed his telescope.)

I am monotheist, not Platonist.  Language is everything (including the existence of mathematics). Language is holy, centred on the Holy Language, which contains the holiest of holy Names that was housed in the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple, uttered only for the world by the holiest priest of the holiest tribe of the holiest people at the holiest moment of the holiest day (of Atonement) of the year. If this faith in language is undone; if the Name is taken in vain, if the Name is not hallowed, then not only is Judaism undone, but so is the whole of Christian civilisation.

Language is everything.  Language is holy. And if you deny that language is holy, the very word “holy” is undone, and nothing is holy.  And you end up, as we have in the West, with deconstructed “post truth”, in which every word is merely contingent on other words; every ‘…ology’ is denied the Logos without which it is meaningless and rootless.

3. The word “Islamophobia” and the Melanie Phillips Furore in December 2019

On December 17th, I hurriedly wrote a blog in defence of the Jewess Melanie Phillips, who was under attack from all quarters of Jewish leadership and celebrity. A London Charedi rabbi, Herschel Gluck, even called her a “hate preacher”.

Melanie had written a column in the Jewish Chronicle calling out charges of “Islamophobia” as bogus, if not intrinsically antisemitic. She is correct. “Islamophobia” – the word being pushed into the liberal and secular Western democracy by Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood – is bogus and intrinsically antisemitic, and I will explain why in some detail.

pollardThe Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, distanced himself from Melanie’s column as a result of the furore. Pollard’s reaction did not surprise me. In the past, he has led me to believe that he finds more meaning in Tottenham Hotspur than in Jerusalem. Here is an example from Twitter, 8 July 2019.

Although it’s none of my business what people eat, it does surprise that a leading English-language influencer of the Jewish diaspora is happy to write to the world that he is not observant, and to imply he allows pork sausages on the table.   This week I am likely to consume the odd chipolata sausage with the family Christmas turkey. My faith allows me to eat pretty much anything: although Jesus and the Twelve all kept kosher, one of the Twelve, Saint Peter, following a visionary experience in Jaffa, instructed us Christians that we do not need to follow his (and Jesus’) Jewish dietary laws in order to keep faith in God of Israel. Similarly, although Mary and Joseph had Jesus circumcised into the Abrahamic covenant at 8-days old, Saint Paul – the Apostle to the Gentiles – insisted it was not necessary for us Gentiles.  The rest is history.

Melanie has Tweeted a link to my blog piece, titled: In Defence of Melanie Phillips’ Calling Out Bogus Claims of ‘Islamophobia’. I hope it has done some good. I think it has. I don’t know Melanie, but I do know some of her friends, who are world-leading experts in antisemitism, whom I have met since I started to dedicate myself to the cause of fighting antisemitism.

Melanie is now obliged to fight against attempts at character assassination by Jewish influencers – including Daniel Sugarman (of the Board of Deputies, formally of the Jewish Chronicle) tweeting to the Jewish Chronicle: “my favourite four words ever to appear in print were ‘Melanie Phillips is away.’ Her presence as a monthly columnist diminishes a wonderful paper. She is a disgrace.”

Since December 17th, I have found myself in rearguard battles in support of Melanie, including with the celebrity Jewish lawyer Mark Lewis (famous for successfully representing victims of News International phone hacking). Lewis joined the outrage against Melanie, and justified his position to his many Jewish fans on social media. Lewis and I engaged in a lengthy battle of words on Facebook. He ended one of his long posts to me thus:

“The fact is that if a chair was called a table, we would still sit on it. The hatred of Muslims simply for the fact that they are Muslim is just wrong. Our condemnation needs to focus on why that hatred is wrong rather than why the term to describe such hatred is wrong.”

Mark Lewis, 20th December 2019, explaining to me his thoughts on language

And herein lies the problem. Lewis does not care which word we use to describe anti-Muslim hatred.  But we need to care, as I explain in the following section.  Furthermore if my interlocutors take such a Post-Modern and liberal attitude to language, then we are all lost in an ever-widening gyre that the centre cannot hold. It is noteworthy that Lewis has used the word “chair” and “table”.  In my faith, the chair (cathedra) is not the table, never has been the table, and never will be the table. In any case, the antitype of Christian table of the Twelve is the Sabbath Table in the Jerusalem Temple, on which were placed the showbread (12 loaves). For English Christians, such as me, “Table” is no ordinary word: it is central to the liturgy, as it is for observant Jews.

If ever I had to swear an oath to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, it would be on an English-language Bible, which has innumerable instances of the word “table” within. Words matter. Truth Matters. The Table matters.

Of course, lawyers are paid to avoid inconvenient facts and to make words mean whatever is best for the client. Lawyers are a necessary function precisely because they can play devil’s advocate. (I’m not anti-lawyers by the way; some of my best friends are lawyers and barristers: seriously.)

I am a scientific technical writer, who has variously work in aerospace (I am ex Royal Air Force), electronics engineering and the life sciences. I cannot be liberal with language. Indeed, one of the ascertained causes for the recent Boeing 737 Max tragedies is incomplete definitions of the software in the pilot’s manuals. It seems the technical writers at Boeing did not follow the rules on abbreviations, or at least not the rules that I had to follow when I wrote to the standards of the Airbus Consortium.

4. The Word “Islamophobia” according to Haras Rafiq

The leaders of the Jewish Leadership Council, the Board of Deputies, and the Community Security Trust, have written a joint letter condemning Melanie Phillips’ article. Their letter ends:

“Whatever the shortcomings of the words “antisemitism” and “Islamophobia”, both problems are very real; combatting them is much harder when one is pitted against the other.”   From the letter of UK Jewish leaders, 17 December, telling the Jewish Chronicle that it was a mistake to publish Melanie Phillips’ concerns about the word “Islamophobia”

This is as bad as Mark Lewis’s suggesting to me that a chair is a table by any other name. “Islamophobia” is NOT the right word to describe anti-Muslim hatred (or hate speech against Muslims, or oppression of Muslims). What the oppressive Government of China is doing to the Uighur Muslims is not “Islamophobia”.

In my hurried piece on 17th November, I mentioned Haras Rafiq, from my memory of hearing him speaking at Oxford in July, telling us we must not use the word “Islamophobia”.

Now; Haras is arguably the best Muslim expert on this subject. Tony Blair and David Cameron evidently thought so, because they charged Haras with leading the development of the necessary policies to prevent Islamist terrorism in Britain. Since 7/7, the work of Haras has helped to keep us all safe, including British Muslims of course: terrorists’ attacks are generally indiscriminate.

Haras is not merely a sociologist. He is a man of faith. He knows Arabic.  He knows how language works, and how Islamist ideologies that are worked out in Arabic are broadcast in English, with what Dr Richard Landes calls a demopathic* use of liberal and democratic values by illiberal ideologues to undermine democracy from within. It’s brilliant when you think about. It’s so brilliant that the leaders of the British and American Jewish diaspora, who are hardly stupid, have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Even Jewish advocates are fooled.

Since writing my last piece, I have had the chance to dig deeper into what Haras actually said. And going back over what he said, it really does, shockingly, alarmingly, make the case for Melanie and against the British Jewish leadership.

I would like to quote Haras verbatim, but his presentation was in a very conversational style. The following, then, is really a compilation, in which for ease of reading I have avoided ellipses and square brackets.

Haras Rafiq’s 90-minute speech had a fairly long section on terminology, beginning with “Islamism”. Here is my précis of what he said (publicly available) in a speech he titled The Triple Threat:

“The word “Islamism” comes from the Islamists, themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood – when they came up with their ideology – called themselves Islamists, and their ideology Islamism. They wanted to differentiate themselves from their fellow worshippers.

“Islamists and their fans try to make the term “Islamophobia” popular because the ideas and values they [the Islamists] stand for are the ones being criticised, and so “Islamophobia” is used as the shield.

“And so what is Islamism? And what’s the difference between Islam and Islamism? There is a difference, much like the difference between social and socialism. Islamism is the distinct political ideology of Sayyid Qutb, who is the modern father, who imported Fascism and Communism from Europe. He like the ideas, but instead of for the people, to do it for God.

“’Islamophobia’ is NOT the correct term. Islam is a set of ideas, a set of values, and in our secular democracy, no ideas should be beyond critique. That’s why we use the term “anti-Muslim hatred”.   If people want to ridicule my faith [Islam], that’s fine. I can take it. I can debate them if I want to, or just ignore it, much like how Christians respond differently to Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.

“Anti-Muslim hatred is the correct terminology to use. Islamists and their fans try to make the term “Islamophobia” popular because the ideas and values they [the Islamists] stand for are the ones being criticised, and so “Islamophobia” is used as the shield.

“I was once no-platformed at Warwick University. I was to give a talk explaining how people of faith can accept “LGBT”. The LGBT society of Warwick no-platformed me because they said I am Islamophobic, because I had stood up against Islamists.

“And so what is Islamism? Islamism wants three things.

    1. To set up a Utopian state. And enforce their version of Fiqh [jurisprudence] which comes from Sharia. To enforce “Sharia” as state law. In fact there is no such thing as “Sharia law”. You will not find the word Sharia with law in the Quran or the hadith, anywhere. Until the 20th century, the attempt to enforce Sharia law has never been done in 1400 years of Islamic history. And Islamism wants to impose this state law on everybody [not just Muslims].
    2. Islamism wants to spread this state around the world. They want what they see as God’s flag on every part of the Earth.
    3. [Haras Rafiq, verbatim] The third thing: wipe Israel off the map.

“[Verbatim] That’s the three things [triple threat], at the top level, that Islamism wants.”

5.  The Jewish Leadership is marching towards the edge of the cliff

Yesterday, Melanie published an excellent piece titled Political Auto-Immune Disease Among Diaspora Jews

Political auto-immune disease among diaspora Jews

She ends the piece:

“And that’s why, although Jeremy Corbyn has now been defeated, the leadership of Britain’s Jewish community is itself marching it towards the edge of the cultural cliff.”

She’s right. And it’s not just the Jewish diaspora and Israel – light unto the nations – that are at stake. Christian civilisation is at stake. Islam is at stake. Everything is at stake, everything, that is, apart from the Islamism that is shielding itself behind the word “Islamophobia”.

* Link here to Dr Richard Landes definition of “demopaths”  http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/demopaths-dupes/

 

Posted in Antisemitism, Christianity, Israel, Judaism, Political philosophy, Science, Theology, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

In Defence of Melanie Phillips’ Calling Out Bogus Claims of ‘Islamophobia’

I am bemused at the Board of Deputies of British Jews’ reaction – and the reaction of Dave Rich, head of policy at CST – to Melanie Phillips’ article, published yesterday in the Jewish Chronicle, in which she calls out the bogus claims of ‘Islamophobia’.

Influential Jewish writers and leadership seem to think that today is have-a-go-at-Melanie day. But I’m sure her lights will burn brightly for the whole 8 nights and days.

Dave Rich tells us on Twitter that Melanie’s article “really is dreadful”.  Many British Jewish thinkers seem to be following the line that, now we have defeated the Corbynistas, and can now recover from antisemitism in the political mainstream, let us campaign against ‘Islamophobia’.

I disagree.  The global crisis of antisemitism is not, and never was, Corbyn’s Labour Party. Corbyn was a genital wart of antisemitism, but he is not the underlying herpes, even if he likes to think he is.  Contemporary anti-Semitism is driven by contemporary Islam, and worse, it is now cross-infecting back into Western Socialism – not least the USA, where almost half the world’s Jews now live – and back into the Christian West, from where we exported Christian French and Christian Nazi antisemitism to Islam within living memory.

[ The Muslim Brotherhood, today the most influential pan-national Islamic movement, founded itself in Cairo in 1928, with Arabic translations of Mein Kampf.  The anti-Dreyfusard French had already exported antisemitism to all their Arab colonies, which became French Nazi colonies in the Vichy Regime, in cahoots with Mussolini’s Libya. During the War, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the de facto leader of the Arab lands, was hosted in Berlin, where he broadcasted Hitler’s philosophies, including the need for genocide, in Arabic, to all Arab peoples through powerful shortwave transmitters.]

Melanie’s article is true, fair, and necessary. She is not attacking Muslim citizens. Indeed, she acknowledges that we should condemn “true prejudice against Muslims”. I agree.

The article headlines with the warning: “Don’t fall for bogus claims of ‘Islamophobia’”. I agree.

As Melanie correctly notes: “Islamophobia” is a word created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood has many tributaries. It has the hard-Jihadist tributaries, such as Hamas, and soft-Jihadist tributaries, such as, in Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain, and Al Jazeera, the state TV of Qatar (the Muslim Brotherhood has more official participation in the Government of Qatar than in any other Arab nation). In the USA, it takes the form of ‘Islamic Science’, and the Council on Islamic-American Relations, or CAIR.

In July this year I found myself in St John’s College Oxford as a guest at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism (ISGAP). One of the speakers was Haras Rafiq, Chief Executive of an organisation called Quilliam, working with the British Government to counter terrorism and extremism, and prevent it in schools, ever since Prime Minister Tony Blair summonsed him to 10 Downing Street immediately following 7/7.

Haras is devout Muslim. I was impressed with his deep interest in the intellectual beauty of Islam that has often found its expression in the Sufi traditions.  Sadly, it is not often in English society that I come across people with such a deep interest in, and love of, the Divine.  Being born-and-bred in Bradford, Yorkshire, I have known a lot of Muslims. And I can honestly say that if I had to name a handful of the most deeply spiritual people who have made an impression on me, most would be Muslims.  Indeed, when I was a young man in the 90s, the elderly Muslim philosopher Professor Hasan Askari – a pioneer of interfaith dialogue – was effectively my spiritual guide, through a difficult patch, where no-one in my own faith community could help.

Haras Rafiq opened his speech with a warning – not unlike Melanie’s –to beware of appeals to “Islamophobia”.

Haras told us, as Melanie tells us, that “Islamophobia” is a word invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, who, though ideologically illiberal, are smart enough, and multilingual enough, to know exactly what words will excite the ego of Western liberals and academics. “Apartheid Israel” is a similar kind of rhetoric, despite the fact that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East and North Africa that is not apartheid. Try hiking across the nations of MENA with a tzitzit or a crucifix, and you will be killed, kidnapped or imprisoned. If you try to walk into apartheid Medina or Mecca with a cross around your neck, and you manage to avoid being killed by a mob, you will be beheaded by the Saudi administration, and your decapitated body will be crucified on public display for precisely three days.  And this is the holiest nation of contemporary Islam.

Since World War II, the world has come to agree on international definitions of Human Rights.  In the United Nations, the Muslim nations are always the first to invoke these human rights in spurious condemnations of the Jews of Israel: the only nation in the Middle East that has Human Rights.  There is not a single Muslim-majority nation, anywhere in the world, that has Human Rights, especially if you are a little girl.

If Western Islamophiles think behaviour based on religious culture trumps Human Rights, we have a moral obligation to fear not only contemporary Islam, but Western Islamophiles. There are 1.9 million child marriages in Pakistan according to UNICEF. Many die trying to give birth.

It is time to speak up, and for Western Muslims to speak up, for the many millions of children who are being raped by their Muslim ‘husbands’.  I am reminded of the passage in Isaiah, in which God puts God in the place of a woman in labour: “I have long time held My peace, I have been still, and refrained Myself; Now will I cry like a travailing woman…”. (Isaiah 42:14, JPS Tanakh).

Earlier this year, Former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt commissioned a report (carried out by a team led by the Bishop of Truro), telling us of “millions of Christians…uprooted from their homes… killed, kidnapped, imprisoned and discriminated against” and a “near genocide” level of persecution in the Middle East, whose Christian population has plunged, in recent decades, from 20% to 5%.

“Islamophobia” is the wrong word to describe anti-Muslim hatred, explained Haras Rafiq, who also explained that the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain are not merely Islamic, but Islamist, pursuing the goal of  Islamic rule of the world through the global “Ummah”.  Haras went on to explain that Islamism is not necessarily violent; it is just as likely to be political and diplomatic in its service of the Ummah, but it has the same goal of a global Islamic theocracy.

Many Western Jews – and Christians come to that – seem to be sleepwalking into what my Jerusalemite friend Richard Landes calls “proleptic dhimmitude”. What Richard means by his neologism is that Jews have become so used to accepting the dhimmi status to which they were subjected throughout the whole history of Islam, that they are now afraid of equal status, lest it upsets the Muslims whose clerics, in every one of the 57 nations of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, teach that Jews are “descended from pigs and apes”, according to new and universally-agreed interpretations of passages in the Quran (backed up by hadiths).

The Prophet Muhammad himself set the first example of dhimmitude by presiding over the decapitation of about 700 Jewish men in Medina (the Jewish Banu Qurayza community) and putting their wives and children into slavery. As Islam is set to become the world’s biggest religion within 30 years (according to the Pew Research Center), it is little wonder that Jews, a mere 0.2% of the world’s population, are cautious about upsetting billions of Muslims.

I say to the Jews, stand tall! We all need you. Your covenants with God are eternal. You are the light unto the nations.

Despite the Holocaust, your tiny tribe has produced about 30% of Nobel Prizes, not least in Medicine. The Nobel Prizes that have come out of Islam can be counted on one amputated hand. Why is this? There was a time when Arab Muslims led the world in everything, so much so that Arabic was, for centuries, the language of science (or natural philosophy). Muslim Arabs gave us modern mathematics, and algorithms, and zero, and, of course, Arabic numerals. Speaking as an engineer, I defy anyone to do calculus with Roman numerals!

Appeasement does not work. As Melanie points out, the Arab forces surrounding Israel are just as genocidal as the [Christian] Nazis were, and are using the very same texts. I would add that in addition to the now best-selling Arabic translations of Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we should not underestimate the global influence of Islam’s own Hitler, Sayyid Qutb (1906 – 1966) whose  “struggle” or kampf, “Our Struggle with the Jews” is the pseudo-philosophical/theological base of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

Perhaps Dave Rich, responsible for the security of Britain’s Jews, believes that the best tactic is not to upset Islamists such as the Muslim Council and the Muslim Association, in the hope of keeping Britain’s Jews safe. If this is what Dave Rich is thinking, it is perhaps understandable in view of his responsibilities for the safety of British Jews. But I think that Melanie Phillips’ courageous approach is the correct one, and ultimately the best for all the world’s Jewry and Eretz Israel: home to half the world’s Jews, half of whom are refugees, or descendants of refugees, from the Arab nations.

Though I am not a Jew, I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the world’s observant Jewry. Like my namesake Lord Eric Pickles, I am a Yorkshireman and a faith ally, committed to fighting the global crises of antisemitism and anti-Israelism. Indeed, I will be lobbying Lord Pickles and the new Tory Government on our Government’s appalling record of voting against Israel in the United Nations, almost always siding with the Islamic-nation bloc of 57 nations, which have no human rights, committed to obliterating Israel, on the grounds of ‘Palestinian’ human rights.

For several years now, I have been campaigning against the antisemitism in my own faith community – the Church of England – particularly the Church’s explicit and implicit support of Arab antisemitism and the forces of Arab and Iranian irredentism surrounding Israel, with over 100,000 rockets in south Lebanon alone, all pointing at Israel.  Here is my op-ed on the subject, published a few weeks ago in the leading American Jewish journal, The Algemeiner:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/11/27/while-acknowledging-past-antisemitism-church-of-england-fails-to-right-historical-wrongs/

And I wrote this piece on my blog in August, which I think vindicates Melanie’s statement that, “The Palestinians constantly spew out medieval and Nazi-themed hatred of Jews”:

https://markpickles.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/the-arab-israeli-conflict-made-simple/

And here is Melanie Phillips’ article, published yesterday:

https://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/don-t-fall-for-bogus-claims-of-islamophobia-1.494367

 

Posted in Antisemitism, Christianity, Israel, Judaism, Political philosophy, Theology, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

1919 Vision: Albert Einstein’s Gravitational Lens


“I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?”

The Merchant of Venice

“2020 Vision” headlines abound as we read about corporate goals for next year. These headlines are restricted to the UK and former British colonies where 20/20 is a measure of visual acuity. Continental Europe prefers the notation 6/6, meaning that the subject can read the optician’s chart from 6 metres, rather than 20 feet, in each eye.

Surprisingly, I have seen no headlines marking the centenary of Einstein’s 1919 vision, made possible as the Moon slotted into the Sun in the spectacular 1919 total eclipse.

The 1919 astronomical experiment – proof of what physicists call the “gravitational lens” – changed everything. Einstein’s new insights into gravity, matter and light, including the photo-electric effect, led to the invention of such things as the nuclear bomb, television, CDs, the mobile phone, and the Internet.

Science was not the only domain to be impacted. Philosophy and theology were all also deeply affected by the Einsteinian paradigm. Einstein’s “relativity” theories inevitably led to all the failed and failing experiments in moral relativism, artistic relativism, linguistic relativism, and even “liberal” theological relativism.

Whereas the Chosen People were chosen to reveal to the world that Time, Earth, Man and Israel are sanctified in God, Einsteinian physics demonstrates that Time is relative to one’s position and speed in the cosmos, or heavens. This would bother me theologically if we all lived in different parts of the heavens, but we don’t; we all live on Earth with a geography that is not relative; it is centred on Zion.

Absolute relativity of Time is true only if, like Einstein, one presupposes that God the Creator, God of Israel, does not exist. If God is everywhere – and if everywhere, and everyone, is in God – then Time is not “relative” to God, and it should not be relative to us. Time is holy. The history of Earth is the Providence of God. And we are to mark time on Earth, keeping, for instance, the Sabbath, the annual festivals, the seventh year, and the Jubilee.

Since Einstein, science has come to teach that “universal gravity” is responsible for the existence of every thing. Without gravity permeating the cosmos, there would be no thing in the cosmos. There would be a homogeneous continuum of nothingness. This realisation has caused some influential scientists to drop “God” for “gravity”:

“Because there is a law [sic] such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing… Spontaneous creation [sic] is the reason [sic] there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist… It is not necessary to invoke God.”

The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, 2010

 

“It does make much sense to pray to the law of gravity”.

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, 2006

 

Ironically, Einstein’s revelations led to the theory of Big Bang (or the “cosmic egg”), the very religious idea that everything in Creation, including time and space, came from a singular uncreated source. Indeed, “Big Bang” was originally a pejorative term coined in 1949 by the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who hated the theory, and said it had been accepted because scientists had been “overshadowed” by the “first page of Genesis”.

It is as if the closer human being (ben adam) gets to knowing God, and the glory of God, the more man tries to hide from God. Plus ça change. The gravitational physicist Stephen Hawking came to derive: “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies”. Imagine trying to sustain civilisation on Hawking’s philosophy!

Our ideas on ultimate things affect our ideas on everything, not least Israel. According to the prophets and the lawmaker (Deut 32:10 for example), Israel is the “apple of His eye”, but not according to Stephen Hawking, who joined the academic boycott of Israel, even though his ability to communicate was through an Israeli microprocessor, and even though the world of gravitational physics is dominated by Jewish scientists. For instance, of the three scientists who shared the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of gravitational waves rumbling eternally through the heavens, two are Jews, one of whom, Rainer Weiss (born 1932) was, like Einstein, a Berliner whose family escaped the Nazis in 1933.

Return to 1919. The War had ended, but not the worst plague in history: the “Spanish Flu”, which killed perhaps 5% of the world’s population. And yet, incongruously, British scientists wanted to launch an international expedition to verify the theories of a relatively unknown German scientist call Albert Einstein, despite a ban on scientific alliances with Germany.

For the proof of gravitational lensing – i.e. proof that gravity shapes space-time and energy – Einstein needed a massive object to demonstrate that gravity bends visible light. He needed the Sun. The longest total eclipse of the Sun since 1416, visible from the southern hemisphere, was forecast for 29th May 1919, which would enable photography of the Sun’s gravitational influence on the light of stars.

British expeditions led by the astronomers Sir Frank Dyson and Sir Arthur Eddington set up camera equipment in Brazil and on the equatorial island of Principe. The stars were photographed at night, and then photographed again as day was turned to night by the eclipse. Comparison of the photographs proved that the Sun’s gravity bends light by the amount predicted by Einstein. Eddington later wrote:

“In a superstitious age a natural philosopher wishing to perform an important experiment would consult an astrologer to ascertain an auspicious moment for the trial. With better reason, an astronomer of today consulting the stars would announce that the most favourable day of the year for weighing light is May 29. The reason is that the sun in its annual journey around the ecliptic goes through fields of stars of varying richness, but on May 29 it is in the midst of a quite exceptional patch of bright stars – part of the Hyades – by far the best star field encountered. Now if this problem had been put forward at some other period on history, it might have been necessary to wait some thousands of years for a total eclipse to happen on the lucky date. But by a strange good fortune an eclipse did happen on May 29, 1919.”

Space, Time and Gravitation, Sir Arthur Eddington

All total solar eclipses are spectacular due to a number of remarkable coincidences concerning the “two great lights”.

The first coincidence (amazing when you think about it) is that from the viewpoint on Earth, the exact centre of the Moon sometimes aligns with the exact centre of the Sun.

Secondly, the reason solar eclipses cause the viewer to gasp in awe is because the disc of the Sun is, at once, 400 times bigger than the disc of the Moon and 400 times further away, making the two discs exactly the same size. The celestial fit is awe-fully perfect. God has seen to it that, from Earth, we have perfect 400/400 vision of the Sun and the Moon.

eclipse2

The 1919 coincidences multiply: the Hyades cluster is in the constellation of Taurus, the Bull. By far the brightest star in Hyades (and Taurus) is the red giant Aldebaran, the “fiery red eye of Taurus”.

In other words, Einstein and the British were right on target: Bullseye! Centre! Gold!

hyades
It is as if – despite Einstein’s contempt of Jewish faith in God of Israel – “the heavens declare the Glory of God”, as they did for the King of Israel (Psalm 19).

“The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses […] the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. […] I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about [the Jews]”.

Einstein’s letter to Erik Gutkind, 1954

What is the “Glory” of God? In the Holy Language, “Glory” – or Kavod at its root kaf-bet-dalet – means, indeed, weight: the weightiness or gravitas of God. “Glory” is the word we should be using where we moderns talk ourselves out of God with the word “gravity”. The cosmos, or heavens, is God’s House (Bet).

I have a hopeful 2020 vision. Next year we will wake up into a new paradigm of gravity: a new understanding and knowledge of the Cosmos, and of Zion, the all-centring micro-cosmos: the House of God: Bet El, the Bet of B-Reshit in microcosm.

Like Jacob on his stone pillow/pillar, we will wake up and say, “surely the Lord is in this place, and we knew it not… How full of awe is this place! This is none other than the House of God, and this is the gate of heaven”.

My 2020 vision has basis: after nearly 30 years sounding the problem of gravity, my book, titled “Gravity is the Word”, is almost ready for publication. It breaks the physics and reorients to the metaphysics.

I hope 2020 will turn over the paradigm of generalised intellectual atheism. As the lawmaker said, as we kindle God’s anger, He “hides His face”. I don’t doubt that our searching through our atheistic and relativistic paradigm was necessary, as were all the accompanying political experiments, but if we are honest it was not fun while it lasted for three or four generations.

In 2020 our eyes will focus, properly, on the light for all nations. Forget Einstein. Forget relativity. Space and Time are not relative, they are centred on Zion: the apple of His eye.

Posted in Antisemitism, Christianity, Gravity, Israel, Judaism, Political philosophy, Science, Theology | 2 Comments