Archives For Globalism

In the book which effectively severed his connection from the French Communists, agnostic French existentialist philosopher, Albert Camus wrote,

‘If everyone believes in nothing, if nothing makes sense, if we can assert no value whatsoever, everything is permissible and nothing is important.’ (The Rebel, 1951)

Camus, a golden-child of the French Communists, famously ‘went against the grain among members of the French left-wing intelligentsia.’ [i] As result ‘Camus was virtually excommunicated from the French intellectual life by Jean Sartre and his comrades’ [ii]

Camus fired a flare out from within the inner sanctum of Leftist elitism. He had fought against fascism in WW2, and saw the terror unleashed in the name of anti-fascism. In this he witnessed an equally oppressive movement, which road on the coattails of false promises, and carefully targeted outrage. His decision to break free exposed the false promises of a utopia built on totalitarianism, and the unquestionable ‘epistemological privilege of the oppressed’ [iii], all enforced by appeasement, and maintained by the buzzwords emancipation and justice.

In the light of Camus’ experience and wisdom, and the past three years, it is no exaggeration to say that the upcoming 2020 election in the United States will be even more important than 2016.

The re-election of the Trump administration will be a decisive and final cut, one that separates a free people from the burdensome shackles of globalism, the smiles, lies and hi-fives of its career politicians, and its bureaucratic caste.

This is why they are in a tail spin, they know that a Trump 2020 win, will be a rebuke of their decades long hold on power. They know that such a win, will give power back to the masses who inherited the responsibility of nurturing the hard-won freedoms handed down them.

They know that a Trump 2020 win will be a loud, unified “no” to fear, manipulation, false promises and the dysfunctional fabric of socialism; a revolt against the burgeoning bureaucratic aristocracy, and it’s globalist imperial feudalism.

They know such a win will be a “yes” to freedom, not a denial of it.

The caveat to this of course is that Trump is no different to any of us when it comes to sin and the need for salvation. Donald Trump is not Jesus Christ or the herald of a golden age. He is the bulwark and resounding “no” of a people who want a return to a government for the people, of the people, by the people. In this Trump at least acknowledges the importance of his office and its role as a servant leader of one nation, under God.

As with the rest of us, Trump still has potential. He is still very much a diamond in the rough. For sure, he has irritating idiosyncrasies. We all do. He may talk about himself far too much, but he at least has the balls to boldly act against the madness of political correctness, the Leftist equivalent of shari’a law; showing that his administration uniquely understands the danger of the political quagmire, the crushing weight of bloated bureaucracy through its forced speech, imprisonment for non-compliance to its irrational ideological standard, and its contempt for Biblical Christianity.

The fact that Trump hasn’t quit under the normal pressure of leadership, or abandoned his post, at every crack of the whip sent his way, by his political enemies, shows character. By not giving up, or irresponsibly giving in, he has expressed value and appreciation for the office he holds and the free, discerning citizens he represents.

Think what you will. Disagree if you must. Trump has proven that he has the chops to fight an unwanted “culture war” thrust upon the West. Nothing changes this fact. He and his team have stood firm, in the face of a contempt and hatred that can only be described as demonic. This is manifest in the manufactured lies, and the hate-Trump-love-trumps-hate dissonance and fear, imposed on the world since 2016.

Our would-be Leftist overlords in the West know that a Trump 2020 win, will be a vote for the restoration of ideas that his office, and his nation were founded upon. In this vote for the restoration of freedom, and the rights and responsibilities attached to it, such a win is not only a win for those in the United States, it’s a win for every man and woman, who cherishes the very concept of liberty, under God, and who, with grateful solemnity, remembers the ultimate price many have paid for it.

Like Camus, Trump was once a darling of the Left. Like Camus, Trump has been rejected by it under the charge of treason against the long ruling Leftist ideological paradigm.

Like Camus’ publication of The Rebel, the 2016 election was an historic time of choosing.

The 2020 election in the United States will be no different.

Ronald Reagan’s words in 1964 hold true:

 “The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honoured dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain… The greater risk lies in appeasement; surrender. We’ll [either] preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.’ [iv]

A Trump 2020 victory will be a resounding “yes” to freedom from those dragged into fighting the unwanted “culture war” thrust upon the West.


References:

[i] Todd, O. 2013, Afterward in Camus, A. The Rebel (Penguin Modern Classics) Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Ed

[ii] Elshtain, J.B. 1995 Democracy On Trial Basic Books

[iii] Newbigin, L. 1989. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, SPCK Classics (p.150)

[iv] Reagan, R. 1964 ‘A time for Choosing’, PDF transcript

First published on Caldron Pool, 8th October 2019.

©Rod Lampard, 2019

Who’s to Blame for the new wave of anti-Semitism in Europe?

Germany’s commissioner against anti-Semitism has issued an ambiguous warning to Jews living within Germany.

Felix Klein is reported to have told Funke Media group that he “cannot advise Jews to wear yarmulkes (traditional cap) everywhere, all the time, in Germany.”

CCN interpreted Klein’s warning as being the result of ‘social disinhibition (lack of restraint) and coarseness’, stating that his comments were in response to the ‘rise of attacks against Jews’ across Germany. Quoting Horst Seehofer, Germany’s interior minister, CNN said that ‘physical attacks against Jews rose from 37 in 2017 to 62 in 2018’. CCN attributed Seehofer as saying, that ‘90% of reported incidents were perpetrated by supporters of far-rights groups’.[1]

The BBC followed closely behind CNN, claiming that ‘the rise of far-right groups is fostering anti-Semitism and hatred of minorities throughout Europe.’ Joining a chorus of news agencies in labeling Germany’s ‘third largest group in the Bundestag’[2],  and main opposition party, ‘Alternative for Germany (AfD)’, as far-right, the BBC then insinuated that AfD was a likely key co-conspirator in the rise of anti-Semitism because AfD is ‘openly against immigration’, even though, as the BBC also noted, AfD ‘denies holding anti-Semitic views.’[3]

Germany’s taxpayer funded International broadcaster, Deutsche Welle, acknowledged similar sentiments, stating that ‘the number of attacks on Jews in Germany had increased from 1,504 in 2017 to 1,646 in 2018 – a rise of 10%.’ However, unlike CNN and the BBC, DW, noted that according to ‘analysts and experts’, the probable cause was twofold, including both the popularity of far-right political groups, and ‘the arrival of millions of “asylum seekers”, mainly from Muslim-majority countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.’[4]

DW specifically cited AfD’s alleged ‘questioning of Germany’s culture of atonement’, and the recent attack on two Jewish men, by a ’19 year old Syrian man, who hurled verbal abuse and struck one of the victims with his belt, yelling the word “Jew” in Arabic.’[5]

Alternative for Germany’ is considered as far-right by the Globalist mainstream media because of the party’s policy position on immigration, particularly Islamic migration. An example of this is The BBC, who, in trying to explain AfD are quick to pull out the far-right and “Nazi” tag, stating that the AfD’s stance on immigration, and its alleged, “extremist” language, which sees Islam as alien to German society, is tinged with ‘Nazi overtones’[6].

The AfD view ‘Islam as a danger for Europe [because Islam] is incompatible with the Europe founded on Greco-Roman antiquity, Jews and Christians, the enlightenment and human rights’[7]. AfD are also against a standing European Army, arguing that they do not want any further European bureaucratizing of Germany.

Felix Klein’s ambiguous warning about wearing the yarmulkes hasn’t gone without criticism. Klein admitted that his “statement had been provocative, but that he wanted to initiate debate about the safety of the Jewish community.”[8]

In both reports on Klein’s comments, neither CNN nor the BBC mentioned Islamic migration as playing a part in the rise of anti-Semitism. This is despite investigative reports from The Times of Israel and Jewish News Syndicate, linking Islamism (and consequently Islamic migration) with violence against Jews living in Europe.

JNS pointed to an official 40-page report from ‘Germany’s Federal office of the protection of the Constitution’, which outlined ‘in reasonable detail, the anti-Semitism among parts of the country’s Muslim community; and that Islamism (Islam in general) is a form of political extremism that aims to end democracy – anti-Semitism is one of its essential ideological elements.’

JNS also stated,

‘Many Muslims are not anti-Semitic, but the anti-Semitism problem in Islam is far from limited to people with extreme political views, or even to religious Muslims. The report notes that individuals with no known prior connections to “organized Islamism” have caused many anti-Semitic incidents. Islamism, the report says, was probably not the direct cause behind a substantial number of incidents.
The document starts by stating that for historical reasons, and in view of the country’s experience with National Socialism, anti-Semitism was long viewed as being inevitably related to the extreme right. Only gradually has it become clear that right-wing extremists do not hold a monopoly on anti-Semitism in Germany today. The report states that a pattern of common, “daily” anti-Semitism is widespread in the social and political center of German society. In addition, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism exist among leftist extremists…
The long-overdue study concludes that the more than 100 anti-Semitic incidents officially caused by Muslims in 2017 are most likely just the tip of the iceberg.’[9]

Germany isn’t alone. In July 2018, The Times of Israel, reported on anti-Semitism in Sweden, another country who has broadly applied an “open borders” policy, claiming that pressure from both Neo-Nazi, and Jihadist bullying, were an issue for the Jewish community.

The Times quoted, Aron Verstandig, president of the Council of Swedish Jewish Communities, who said, “we have a vibrant community in Stockholm but even here we face multiple threats, from Muslim extremism to far-right violence.”[10]

In direct contrast to Jewish news agencies, and even Germany’s International public broadcaster, the reports from CNN and the BBC left out Islamism and anti-Zionist/anti-Israel Leftists, who are also central elements in the rise of anti-Semitism within Europe.

It’s clear that neo-Nazism is a fringe element in the West, and it would be naïve to ignore any such movement. Few would dispute this. CNN and the BBC’s selectivity, however, raise questions about who gets to define what a neo-Nazi is? It’s reckless of Mainstream media to jump to conclusions and draw false links between one group and another because they only see what they want to see. That isn’t journalism, its manipulative propaganda.

Both reports from CNN and the BBC also force us to ask how much of an impact “open borders” policies has on freedom of the press. Their selectivity is either deliberate or done out of fear of becoming a political pariah; of being mislabelled a “racist”, “xenophobic” or an “Islamophobe”. As much as it’s probably the latter, I suspect this is an exception to the rule.

Thus CNN and the BBC’s selectivity adds weight to why the current Globalist agenda should be questioned and rejected, because there is a seemingly obvious, co-ordinated effort, to slander, and therefore silence, all those who are currently not in agreement with Leftism’s Gobalist initiatives, as “Nazis”.

Such slander plays on the collective consciousness in the West about the evils of fascism, and National Socialism. All while blinding Westerners to the absence of a collective consciousness about the very real evil of Communism, and the Socialist’s own perpetual, imperial war machine.


References:

[1] Matthew Robinson, ‘German Jews warned not to wear kippahs in public following spike in anti-Semitism, CNN sourced 27th May 2019

[2] WD, What is the Alternative for Germany? Sourced, 27th May 2019

[3] The BBC, ‘German Jews warned not to wear kippas after rise in anti-Semitism Sourced, 27th May 2019

[4] DW, ‘German official warns Jews against wearing Kippahs in public, Sourced 27th May 2019

[5] DW, ‘Germany: Syrian man faces charges for Kippah attack, Source 27th May 2019

[6] The BBC, 2017. ‘German Election: How right-wing is Nationalist AfD? Sourced, 27th May 2019

[7] AFD, Islam – Danger for Europe, Sourced 27th May 2019

[8] SFGate, 2019. ‘Israeli President shocked by German skullcap warning, Sourced, 27th May 2019

[9] Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, 2019. ‘German intelligence issue taboo breaking report on Muslim anti-Semitism, Jewish News Syndicate, Sourced 27th May 2019.

[10] Cnaan Liphshiz, 2018. Under Neo-Nazi & Jihadist bullying, Swedish communities are shuttering, The Times of Israel, Sourced 27th May 2019

Photo Credit: Photo by DAVIDCOHEN on Unsplash

(Originally published on The Caldron Pool, 27th May 2019)

©Rod Lampard, 2019

In a 2006 article written for the Stanford Journal of International Relations, called ‘Responding To Genocide In Sudan[i], Stephan M. Doane lays out reasoning for a much needed, tougher international stand on the issues plaguing Sudan.

The article is dated, but raises, on an academic level, awareness about the plight of many South Sudanese people, who are stuck in a cycle of constant violence. Many of whom are Christians.

Doane’s piece is well researched. He argues that the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is less acknowledged by international stakeholders. For example, the U.N and the international community appear ‘indifferent’ towards the aggression and socio-political maneuvering of the Islamist North.

Evidence for this is found in the fact that up until at least 2006, when foreign aid was delivered to Sudan for distribution in the South, the North controlled when, where and who received it. As a result, International aid became one more way in which the North could control the South.

‘Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), was restricted by the North from bringing aid to South Sudan. Many died because of UN acquiescence to Khartoum demands that dictate where to allow passage of UN-sponsored flights. To this day (2006) the UN still grants the northern government authority over its relief efforts’ (Doane, p.2)

Demographically, the North of Sudan is ‘primarily Arab and Arab-African’ (p.1). Most of the North are Muslim who desired Sudan to become Muslim. Doane, citing Madut Jot’s ‘War and Slavary in Sudan’, 2001 states that ‘the resolute will to make Sudan an Arab and Islamic nation originates from the belief that

“Arabism has a superior rank than Africanism, based on the way they view the racial hierarchy”[…]‘Southern leaders were treated as second class citizens.’ The intent of the North was to implement Islamic law (Shari’a) and set up and Islamic state; ‘”it’s chosen hegemony” (p.2)’.

According to Doane, Sudan’s troubles can be traced back to its independence. When independence was formed, under a British civil administration in 1947, ‘many of the southern representatives present were not ready to accept the unity of the Sudan – due in large part to prior deception from the North’ (those deceptions aren’t elaborated on).

In 1955, a civil war erupted between North and South that lasted until 1972. This was initiated by the South and was triggered primarily because ‘the Sudanese government [sought] to subjugate southerners to a cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage that is not their own – Islam.(p.2)’

In 1983, civil war broke out again. This time towns were

 ‘ravaged by government troops and government supported milita caused internal displacement of southerners in gigantic  proportions. The hijacking of food deliveries from international relief agencies resulted in more than 250,000 deaths by famine in 1988 alone, in addition to military casualties. Military victories by the Southern forces motivated a peace initiative which included the abolishment of Islamic Law (Shari’a) as the law of the land (p.2).’

Doane continues,

‘Displaced Southerners were often gathered in forced-labor camps as well as re-education camps where children are forced to learn Arabic, memorize the Qu’ran, convert to Islam, and are beaten or tortured if they do not comply. [Among other war crimes] Women are frequently raped; arbitrary arrests and imprisonment are common […] Government armies and government-supported Popular Defence Forces also sell southern women and children as slaves (p.2).’

Yet, even with these examples,

‘many international governments support the aggressor [the North] and its policy goals. In addition, the U.N has been reluctant to rebuke the Sudanese government for its human rights violations […] The international body most sympathetic to the northern government is the League of Arab States. Bulgaria, China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and former Soviet Republics have all sold weapons to the northern government armies and state-sponsored militias (p.4).’

As Doane is right to point out, ‘what is most ironic,however, is Sudan’s membership on the UN Human Rights Commission.’ Furthermore, ‘the hypocrisy of selecting such an abusive government to judge human rights violaters reveals the extent to which the world has turned a blind eye to the [issue of slavery in Sudan] and the genocidal actions of the North.’

Sudan was a member of the UN Human Rights Commission from 1998-2000 and was assured a seat in the 2012[ii] election round for the Commission’s replacement, the UN Human Rights Council which replaced the Commission in 2006[iii]. The North’s candidacy was, however, vetoed when a ‘group of African nations petitioned against it’[iv], on the grounds of the human rights abuses carried out there by the North.

Doane also highlights how blind-eyed foreign investment in oil, helped the North exploit and torture the people of the South.

Citing Mindy Belz,

‘China’s petroleum firm (CNPC) reportedly purchased a high-tech radar system for the government last year. It was installed in summer, and since then the government bombing raids against southern targets (mostly churches and humanitarian relief organisations) have increased.’[v]

He then writes,

‘The windfall  of revenue allowed the North to purchase sufficient military firepower to permanently eradicate the South Sudanese opposition. This impending possibility correlates with the stated vision and previous action of the despotic Khartoum regime, and this threat must not be taken lightly’ (p.5)

In concluding, Doane links up the War on Terror with continued oppression in the South. While the North supported the West in its War on Terror, the North had leverage over any committed effort by the international community to push for peace and justice for the South Sudanese:

 ‘It would be sadly, ironic if the deaths of thousands of civilians on September 11 provide a pretext that the North Sudanese Government could use to kill many more thousands of civilians with international impunity’ (p.8)

In other words, Christians and people of South Sudan were fighting a war against terror in their own right, only to be overlooked by the West, because they lacked the resources, voice, support, and recognition that its Northern neighbour had and has.

Doane’s essay is eleven years old and shows its age. It doesn’t mention the 2013 ethnically motivated civil war in the South, nor does it mention diplomatic efforts in the way of sanctions, pushed for by the recent Obama administration, efforts designed to censure the North. Also missing is the important historical note that in 2011, South Sudan found its own independence[vi].

Although independence was won, and civil war continues to linger, turmoil created by the North also continues. In 2012, the UN Security Council issued a resolution calling for a cessation of ‘repeated incidents of cross-border violence between [North] Sudan and South Sudan, including seizure of territory, support to proxy forces and aerial bombing.’[vii]

The South is a nation trying to find its way towards reconciliation. It’s a new nation, that fought a great struggle against much of what the world seems to ignore: militant Islamist expansionism, non-white racism, modern slavery, and religious genocide. Given their fight against terror and oppression; the calamity, division and devastation brought onto the South by the North, it’s no surprise, that two years after independence, the South was thrown into a civil war.

The strength and benefit of ‘Responding To Genocide In Sudan’ is found in its clear ability to raise awareness of the situation in Sudan. With over 45 references, it issues us with a reliable resource that gives invaluable insight into the whole of Sudan. Both what it is, what it was and what it may perhaps still become. It’s age shouldn’t be a deterrent to reading it.

South Sudan is a war torn land. It’s a land torn apart by wars spreading out over eight decades. There can be no doubt that the South Sudanese are an ostracized, isolated and suffering people, stuck in a perpetual cycle of violence.

Stephan Doane highlights this tragedy and the need for its quick remedy. Through it he also reminds us about what occurs when, once again, the world stands by in its appeasement of real totalitarians, who under the guise of peace, blind the world to the oppression of their people; disguising the insidious nature of an ideology that forges a toxic hegemony, from which the totalitarian can hide his or her crimes behind.


Sources: (underlined and hyperlinked where appropriate)

[i]  Doane, S.M 2006 Responding to Genocide in Sudan: Barriers to Peace, International Indifference,  and The Need for Tough Diplomacy,  Stanford Journal of International Relations sourced 19th April 2017 from web.stanford.edu

[ii] Miller,J.R. 2012  Genocidal Sudanese regime’s appointment to UN human rights council all but certain, watchdog says” sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.foxnews.com

[iii] BBC, 2013 Concern Over New Human Rights Members sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.bbc.com

[iv]  Human Rights Watch, 2012 African Union: Don’t Endorse Sudan, Ethiopia for Rights Council, sourced 19th April 2017 from www.hrw.org

[v] Belz, M. 2001 Blood For Oil, World Magazine sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.world.wng.org

[vi] Gettleman, J. 2011 After Years of Struggle, South Sudan Becomes a New Nation sourced sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.nytimes.com

[vii] UN Security Council Meeting notes, 2012 Calls for an immediate halt to fighting sourced 19th April 2017 from http://www.un.org.

Photo Credits: Gregg Carlstrom (Creative commons).

 (RL2017)