Produced by KRIKOS.
Political and religious labels are misleading. Depending on the context, these labels change in meaning. In one context, such as Maoist China or Spain during the Civil War, republican might be defined as communist, whereas in the United States, the modern Republican is essentially a neo-conservative. In France, Republicans are centrists and the other major alternative is the far left Socialist Party. Furthermore, labels are often used as a method of control, riddled with arbitrary conjecture & irrationalism. For example, take libertarianism. Ayn Rand is the fountainhead of the label. Despite being a so-called individualist doctrine, anti-statist, anti-communist, pro-anarchy essentially, Ayn Rand remained dependent on government welfare & died in debt. In this case, the ideology is not merely vague — it has no sense.
There are too many organizations that profit off preaching extreme & baseless political views instead of quality innovation. America is the world’s hub for entrepreneurs, open-markets & free-trade. There are however, many barriers to this system. ‘Republicans’ might suggest the problem is an over-reaching government. But usually when the US government is doing any over-reaching, the party in control is Republican. The hypocrisy is evident. Republicans are more correctly described as neo-conservatives. They are statists who use ideology to expand their political agendas domestically & abroad. Personally, I think the Republican party should be renamed the ‘Conservative Party’. Reason is because the Democratic Party is the actual successor of the Democratic-Republican Party which reflects the ideal of limited government more reasonably than the GOP. The classical-liberalism which is intended to serve as the foundation of the Republican Party is completely absent. What actually exists in the void is a religious zealotry, which combines state-expansionism w/ religious evangelism. I would classify the Bushes & Ronald Reagan in this category. If any of the two parties even remotely exhibit any aspects of classical liberalism it would be the Democrats. Generally speaking the Democrats are anti-war & pro-civil-liberties. Most civil rights movements find support from the Democratic Party, more so than the Republican Party.
Meanwhile Libertarians like Rand Paul & his father tout an ideal that doesn’t exist. Perhaps without realizing it, they too are pawns of the neo-conservative movement. The Pauls can’t decide whether they support Israel or not, but seeing as how libertarianism is without affirmation, so too is their loyalty. The inconsistencies in this ideological dogma are rampant. They merely work to further distract individuals from the motive of the ‘Republican’ Party, which is to expand the role of the state beyond democratic & egalitarian means at home and abroad. At home their agenda works to suppress minorities, African-Americans, Muslim & Arab-Americans, Hispanics, Women, Gays, Immigrants, Jews, & Atheists — to disenfranchise them from the social, economic and political scene of America.
The nepotism within capitalism is so rampant that it makes Republicans look completely ridiculous when they make claims about rags-to-riches, especially when few of them experienced this route but rather inherited their wealth or benefit off the nepotism of white privilege in America.
Furthermore the double-standard is apparent in that only conventional views are the big profiteers while conscious non-conformers are disenfranchised from the social, economic & political fabric of American society. White people, especially those who espouse neo-conservative attitude. Let me add that there is a generally accepted belief that atheists and the republican party are incompatible due to religious differences but in reality these two forces work hand in hand. You do not have to be a religious fanatic to be a neo-con. Christopher Hitchens & Bill Maher, two renowned atheists, RIP to the former, were avid neo-cons who supported the Bush Jr. campaign in Iraq. All of these labels are used to pin us against each other instead of addressing the actual issues. Most of these dudes hold profitable positions because they’ve conformed to the neo-con attitude–HIGHLY profitable in America.
Instead of relying on fanatical ideologies & religious social systems for sustenance, why not rely on yourselves and your individuality?
Furthermore, just like Bill Maher & Christopher Hitchens can use their ideology to profit, why can’t we non-conformers & anti-neo-cons? Watch TYT reluctance to call the recent murders of 3 Muslim-Americans a hate-crime, probably because it was committed by a White, American atheist (video below). The Young Turks network remains till this day non-vocal on the issue of the Armenian-Genocide, to the benefit of neo-cons & NATO & some Turkish agents.
While TYT & Uygur have made it clear that they are not associated with The Young Turks ideology which was likely responsible for the Armenian Genocide in 1915, which claimed not only the lives of Armenians but also Assyrians & Greeks, it has yet to recognize the crime as a genocide altogether. I believe only through continued assimilation of Turks & Armenians can this crime once and for all be recognized, justice served & dignity restored.
It isn’t surprising that the Armenian Genocide has yet to be treated as a Holocaust. In an article I once read, the recognition of past political crimes on a massive scale requires amnesty and thus raises the status of a given group to one of privilege; a benefit only some wish to enjoy. How many groups have been historically systematically oppressed, whose sufferings remain today, wholly unaddressed? African-Americans? Armenians? Arab-Christians? Chinese Democrats? Muslims? Palestinians? Africans? Immigrants?
The list goes on.
As a deist who recognizes the existence of an eternal Supreme deity, I take issue with the reality that much spirituality and religion is held hostage to the dogmas of compulsion, strict adherence & fanaticism. While not all religions espouse this, as an Arab-Armenian, I am forced to witness the consequences of religious fanaticism everyday.
The so-called ‘Arab Spring’ which was apparently intended to usher in democracy into the Middle East proved to produce negative results. In Egypt the fanaticism of the Muslim Brotherhood took hold. The majority in this case was not tolerant of social liberalism and therein caused a religious mess. A military coup followed resulting in the restoration of the non-democratic tradition of Middle Eastern political culture.
But to suggest that democracy is a perfect concept is not only irrational — it is by definition, un-American. In today’s world, the so-called global police of all democracies, isn’t even, by definition, a democracy. America is a federal republic. The founding fathers often held democracy in disdain because it allowed for the possibility of instability.
The idea that democracy is an end would suggest that it is universal, absolute & self-sufficient. But just as China’s shift from robust communism to mixed economics proved the inefficiency & inhumane nature of adherence to absolute communism, so to has the US, since FDR really, drifted further away from robust democratic-capitalism to leftist-inspired mixed economics. Never has the US, or any major western hegemony for that matter, exhibited a state of pure democracy, precisely because of the power and influence of religious fundamentalism on the political process and on society altogether.
Is Democracy just?
It is rationalism which manifested the philosophy of democracy, the idea that the majority should rule and that order would ensue. But choice is an enigma, as is human nature, and reducing humanity to statistics results in collective totalitarianism. Who is to say that the majority of human beings would choose what is right or moral? The assumption that numbers do the talking may work for basic creatures of animalistic instinct but the complexity of human nature requires that we consider the possibility that individual rights, self-reliance, experience & self-determination are often compromised by democracy and ensuing collective ideological movements.
Are there limits to how much democracy should be exhibited?
If the majority of a country consistently elects leaders who legislate unjust policies, doesn’t this suggest a flaw in relying strictly on majoritarian politics? Is majoritarian democracy the problem? Switzerland exhibits what is called proportional-representation; that way minority groups aren’t disenfranchised from the conversation of representation. In the US however it seems democracy has been a tool in rallying support for non-democratic policies, from tax breaks for the 1% to full-fledged arbitrary invasions of foreign countries.
What is holding America hostage is the elitist mentality of the 1%. But does democracy encourage this? The free market exists, but is it stifled by elitism & industrial monopoly?
There is an association between free markets and democracy, what we call here in the West, democratic-capitalism. How much do these values really ensure individual & collective rights?
Realistically I would argue that every nation will realize its need for mixed economics in order for survival. Empires which have relied on dogmatic-ideologies have eventually run themselves dry, from ancient pagan empires to modern twentieth-century totalitarianism.
So perhaps the problem in the international community is not the absence of democracy or republicanism but rather an absence of ‘moderate’ forces which do not threaten national sovereignty and do not enable colonialism.
The Democratic Index of 2012 compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit lists the US 21st on the list. Israel, supposedly the Middle East’s only democracy, is not included. This isn’t to suggest that these countries are not democracies, but rather, that the level of democratic rights which are instituted are relatively low compared to the ideal of democratic representation.
Poverty and ego are the main causes of ideological fundamentalism. The solution to the Middle East is not democracy. It is the opposite. It is the end of foreign dogma in the region. Neither democracy, capitalism, communism or Islam are going to solve the socio-economic crises of the Middle East; and in reality, the push for democracy by the West during the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ had neither democratic values nor the interests of the Middle Eastern people in mind, but rather, another pseudo-revolution aimed at distracting the world from the behind-the-scenes oil-for-weapons trades going on.
Measuring a country’s morality or integrity based on its level of democracy is one thing; but to suggest that a country IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, is foolish — because no country ever has or currently exhibits pure democracy. The idea that the majority is infallible is foolish and arrogant. Furthermore, the idea that West understands more than the East what constitutes an acceptable level of democracy is self-righteous and hypocritical, given statistical data from the Economic Intelligence Unit which suggests that democratic values are not upheld completely by any western hegemony.
That brings me to Israel. It was, on the contrary, included on the list of flawed democracies, with India, Brazil, Russia & Argentina beside it.
Israel claims to be “A” democracy. It couldn’t be further from the truth on two notes: firstly, that no country has ever exhibited absolute democracy; and secondly, in that it is a ethno-religious entity…by nature it cannot be egalitarian. Furthermore, Israel represents a minority in the Middle East. Still, it maintains close ties with dictatorial regimes in order to ensure its control over the media, because facts are on the side of the Arabs, which show that the Arab & Muslim world are completely disenfranchised from the conversation of justice and values of democracy. Israel is not infallible; it is not secular; it is not egalitarian; and it is essentially a product of classic gerrymandering. Israel, like the Republican Party in the US, is perpetually in a race against time, desperate for occupation, constantly propagating dogma & hypocrisy.
The self-righteous attitudes of Republicans, pro-Israelis & neo-conservatives only exposes their hypocrisy. They rely on forces of religious fundamentalism, usury & imperialism in order to protect themselves from criticism and being brought to justice.
Whether democracy is the moral or best form of government, I cannot say for sure. I will say however, that if by democracy we mean the assurance of human rights, I am not exactly sure how well the US fares in that regard; neither the US, nor any of its supposedly democratic allies.
I recently came across a comment by a pro-Israeli which read that Palestine was a roman creation. So too, was Israel. The idea that the Roman Empire & the Jewish Kingdom were never in agreement is at odds with history. Furthermore, was it not the pagan emperor Darius & the following Persian emperors who helped rebuild the Second Temple? The ties between Israel, imperialism & global empires goes back quite far. Today, instead of Rome we’ve got the UK & the US. Quite appropriate, given the greco-roman cultural foundations of both societies. Perhaps this is what Nietzsche was referring to when he mentioned the political order of the Judeo-Christian monopolization of monotheism & socio-economics. Before we deem critics of western society as atheists or fanatics, let us apply the same criticalness to ourselves. How moral are we, really, America?
Communism, fascism, democracy, republicanism, ultra-nationalism, theocracy all serve the agenda of Imperialism and work coercively against national sovereignty and human rights. An article recently published by Business Insider received insight on Middle East politics through the eyes of an Arab billionaire who requested that his identity remain anonymous to protect his name and family from danger. In the article, he made many interesting points, one of which caught my eye the most. The following is a quote from the article:
Israel doesn’t want peace because Russian immigrants have taken over its political system and moved it rightward.
This shows the close association between the state of Israel and imperialism. The vast immigration of Russian jews to the Middle East largely makes up the majority of Israel’s population. Imperialism & elitism have a longstanding tradition in Russian history. It was the Bolshevik communist revolution which brought the tradition to a sudden halt, thereby pinning Russia and the USSR against the West in a global conflict for the balance of power in a bi-polar stand-off called the Cold War, which lasted nearly half a century. Israel was largely the product of an agreement between various imperial forces. The Bolshevik revolution, like the Nazi movement, appeared to have been anti-semitic and violently hostile to Judaism on the surface; but in reality, both of these forces served as catalysts for the creation of Israel in 1948.
The point here is that Israel’s history and its policies are reflective of its practically absent democratic attributes. In the 21st century it is looking more and more like the apartheid regime which ruled South Africa from 1948 (the irony) till the end of the millennium.
The engine of industrialization and capitalism is often understood as freedom and individual innovation, but never as a product of government nepotism and imperial exploitation versus genuine free trade. Israel & Saudi Arabia are products of this reality. It is not the free-market culture but rather the culture of American Exceptionalism which has contributed to the successes of Zionism & global imperialism.
I would argue that free-markets and capitalism are completely different and in fact mutually antithetical. Capitalism is an attitude of supremacy, where as free markets are a philosophy of openness, self-reliance and innovation. Capitalism requires forced labor, slavery, ownership of natural resources, and enables oligarchy. Imperialism is an extension of capitalism, both of which are rooted deeply in white supremacy, orientalism and colonial exploitation.
The reveals the culpability of Israel and western neo-cons in the occupation of palestine and the propagation of nazi-esque white supremacy. It is this culture of racism which is responsible for the trans-atlantic slave system which practically built the United States. It is this culture of racism which enslaved South Africa, and continues to oppress Palestinians. It is this racism which ethnically cleansed the Armenians in a still unrecognized genocide by the Turkish government in the early twentieth century, paving the way for future genocides to be unheard of.
Secularizing the conversation on the Palestinian genocide, actually threatens the pro-Israeli argument. It has to. Israel, by nature, is a religious entity — despite efforts by any spokesperson to suggest otherwise.
Secularizing the conversation on the conflict between Palestinian nationalism & international occupation, deems Israel a theocratic apartheid-state.
Secularization, by nature, requires religious & cultural diversity, egalitarianism and in contrast, rejects elitism, exclusivism & bigotry.
Palestinians outnumber the populations of Israelis by almost 4 million. Arabs outnumber the Jews. And yet, the State of Israel, which represents the minority population, protected by self-righteous Western colonialists, remains probably the only Middle Eastern country that is part of the 1st world, with flee-flowing goods, access to technology, industry and mobility within the international economic community. The majority, the Palestinian nation, made up largely of Arabs, Armenians, Jews, Muslims & Christians, are left largely disenfranchised from the entire conversation, deeming the State of Israel an apartheid-entity, comparable to South Africa.
Can America, Israel, or any one of the countries in the international community which claim — self-righteously — to be a ‘full-fledged’ democracies put their money where their mouth is? Because I wonder: how can a democracy exist within the confines of a nation-state if it is constantly trading & doing business with corrupt non-democratic states, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, China, Russia & Qatar?
The self-righteous attitude which gives the US (& Europe) the audacity to criticize foreign countries for their “non-democratic values” serves as the premise for imperialism & economic inequality in the world. America’s entire economy thrives off Chinese pseudo-communism. How can we claim to be the democratic police of the world?
In the 21st century we continue to falsely imprison our own citizens, kill & permit racism towards our own people — how can we make this bold claim?
The Republican Party’s unrelenting support for Israel has strangled US foreign policy largely up until the election of President Obama who has to some degree casted a grey cloud over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The rise of ISIS has prompted further inquiry into the role played by US allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Israel in the spread of fundamentalism in the region, which has been exporting itself to the West since the 1970s for the most part. Monarchy is Saudi Arabia is comparable to Israeli-apartheid in Palestine. The Gulf country is largely responsible for rise in pseudo-Islamic terrorism. It is one of the few countries that continues to maintain a behind-the-doors type of agreement with Israel and major world powers, “oil-for-weapons”, as it is called.
It happens to be that jihadis work well with Israel because like Israelis they are paid agents working to serve the cause of colonialism and distortion of reality by associating attacks with religion. In fact terrorists of “Islamist” and “Zionist” persuasion slander both religions. Neither religion, in essence, would endorse irrational violence. The bond between jihadis and Zionists in close, exemplified in the Faisal-Weissman agreement, a formal document which recognizes the Jewish right to existence in mandatory Palestine under a new state called Israel. The extreme version of the Jewish narrative for a return to ancient Israel sits well with many of the Middle East’s despotic monarchs and tyrannical governments — often propped up by Western governments themselves.
Secularizing the conversation on the conflict also means that I will place a noticeable effort to avoid referring to the political entity as Israel but rather as the modern, 21st century colonial-outpost of the West & broader imperial global elite. I will refer to groups like Hezbollah as military organizations, and I will make the distinction clear between Hezbollah, an organized nationalistic, military-resistance initiative versus pseudo-Islamic terrorist networks working for foreign agents such as ISIS, al-Qaeda & al-Nusra. These will be referred to as such so as to prevent the slandering of Islam as well as the legitimization of arbitrary colonialism disguised as “international security initiatives”.
Furthermore I would also like to make the point that the Zionism’s greatest source of support doesn’t come from Jews. Firstly, American Jews are largely disenchanted with Israel. Secondly, the Jewish community in Israel is comparatively minute. So where does the immense support for Zionism come from? The elite must garner support from an ignorant mass. Seeing as how religion and extremist ideology are the best tools for collective sedation and rallying.
Christian-Zionism emanates mainly from the US & parts of the European continent. It is resembles ideologies like fascism, Messianism, Bolshevism, nazism, militant-atheism, anarcho-capitalism & Wahhabism. Based on the common denominator of superiority, these groups reflect one another’s violent intolerance.
A question to the ADL. I applaud what you stand for. Can I ask:
Is it not possible to refrain from associating anti-semitic discrimination of any kind with social activism against apartheid? Are the two not mutually exclusive?
The world expects Israel’s desperate search for/protection of a homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust to take precedence over the Palestinians’ right to self-determination…and will make their right to existence more important than Palestine’s. Settlement-expansion does not convince anyone of the possibility of an actual two-state solution (completely delegitimized). Furthermore the religious & post-WWII argument for the existence of a Jewish state still does not provide a moral, logical solution to the problem of Palestinian self-determination & human rights. This suggests a failure on the part of the international community to properly address the Jewish question of state-hood. The religious narrative coupled with history shows that the Jews have been well-established themselves in various nations of prominence for centuries, in Russia, the US, France, the UK, Argentina & Brazil. Pre & Post-Holocaust, the Jews enjoyed affluence, equality & prominence. Why the need for an extended colony if it requires a second holocaust of an entire nation, the Palestinians? Furthermore, the triumph of democracy in the twentieth century over fascism & anti-semitism shows that despite isolated incidents, the West remains a safe haven for semites of all backgrounds.
Tonight is of great importance to the immigrants of America, however tonights speech by President Obama and the subsequent policy changes and announced reforms will have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the borders of America; even beyond the confines of the immigration issue itself.
It will affect the economy certainly. In the bigger picture, this effect will likely be positive.
More importantly, this will affect the lives of human beings who have been ostracized from society and even their families. Basic human rights which they have been denied will finally be directly addressed by the President of the United States.
Had an interesting conversation with a dear friend of mine on the issue of the debate between religion and science, atheism and theism.
While I sought to avoid all the useless rhetoric which leads to no answers – I sought to reconcile what I believe to be two perceptions that are not all quite that different. What I have noticed as a common denominator amongst so-called atheists is a disdain more-so for the morose attributes of religion rather than the philosophy and intellectualism behind it. In reality, even in today’s modern world, religion is a tool for control, power and crime (as expressed through politics), which does nothing to improve the image of the philosophy behind theology in the first place.
Social liberalism grew largely out of the resistance movements against monarchism, despotism, authoritarianism, and socio-economic control. Since most of these ‘tyrants’ in history were in fact justifying their actions through religious dogma, it only makes sense that individuals would be repulsed by the idea altogether. But just as there have been religiously dogmatic tyrants, there have also been irreligiously dogmatic tyrants. And in the midst of it all, we’ve even had tyrants who could not make the decision for themselves, such as Hitler, who in one angle portrays himself as a God-fearing messiah, and in other, an anti-judaic anti-christ. Stalin and Lenin worked to disenfranchise religion entirely from the socio-political scene.
Ultimately, each individual ought to be free – atheist or not. In the end it seems to me what matters are the virtues of life that are carried in philosophy altogether. Religious fanatics will claim you cannot be good without obedience to organized religion; atheists claim you can be ABSOLUTELY moral without the help of God. Both seem quite extreme. I sympathize with the atheist however, because religious dogma is terrifying. Yet, I do believe that without God, man falls prey to hubris, which eventually leads to power-grabbing, and an obstruction of human liberty and dignity.
Ultimately, I must say I am devoted to the Abrahamic God – and I believe all truth and beauty resonates from Him. The wonders of philosophy, morality, existentialism, and secularism as well – all of these resonate from that wonderful truth which is perfection – the Lord of the worlds. No, I do not traditionally welcome the Christian anthropomorphic version of God, and I do reject the evangelical and fundamentalistic zionist interpretation of God – seeing both of these as equally dogmatic and detrimental to individual liberty, dignity, and truth.
I am a muslim and a jew. I believe in the message of Allah. I do so philosophically, however not ‘religiously’. I submit to God – not to one man’s devious understanding of God.
I believe the UAE is a grand example of why capitalism needs to slow its role when trying to convince the world it should be ‘unfettered’ – let me rephrase that. I believe blah blah blah is an example of why we need to distinguish between capitalism and pseudo-capitalism.
I decided to reword it once I went through it all one more time before posting it. I love capitalism. Well, I love truth, and I am not going to hold the truth hostage to my stupid opinion – so instead of devoting my energy to touting something that might be wrong, fundamentalistic, or incomplete, I am going to devote my energy to trying to distinguish between what I think is right, and what I think is wrong, and eventually leaving it up to you to decide. I mean, I am definitely putting in my two cents – I am human after all.
Among the pictures in the below link – one especially caught my eye – the caption that is. Caption reads: Tea Party would not be pleased. Why?
89% of Dubai is made of immigrants – yes the west’s favorite scapegoat when venerating the wonders of capitalism. 71% of those immigrants are Asian – probably illegally there – exploited under inhuman work conditions – these guys are slaves people…
You think these immigrants have any human rights guarantees?
You see, I think the problem is that people here in the West like to worship a pseudo-capitalism that – in a more professional, perhaps academic, setting – would likely be labeled anarcho-capitalism, where even the most basic tenets of capitalism and individual rights are ignored for the sake of serving some arbitrary, usually tyrannical, goal, like dominating an entire region on earth in the Middle East. And this pseudo-capitalism is to these anarcho-capitalist libertarians what chairman Mao might have been to the ‘commies’.
Remember folks, God came before capitalism – believe it or not.
But here in the West any criticism of capitalism is immediately assumed to be un-american, communistic, or atheistic – none of which I think is accurate – in fact the only thing un-american is the absence of free thought, discourse and debate on pressing issues such as these – ones that affect Americans and non-Americans alike.
Instead of hurling labels like socialist and islamist around – let’s carefully dissect the accusations so that we may distinguish between true and frue.
LINK TO REFERENCED ARTICLE