October 15, 2023: It took us a week to formulate this statement. We are a movement made up of Jewish and Arab women with diverse opinions and positions, and we found ourselves inside this crazy, threatening, horrible and frightening movie. There are no words in any language to describe what we all went through this past week. We are still searching for the right words that we can share at this moment.
First of all, we mourn the brutal murder, in an indescribable and unforgiveable massacre carried out by Hamas, of over 1300 civilians, babies, children, women, men, the elderly, male and female soldiers, members of the security and rescue forces, among them Arab civilians and soldiers. We wish complete recovery and rehabilitation to the thousands injured in body and soul.
We share the deep sorrow of members of Women Wage Peace who lost family members; we offer support to the members of the movement from the Gaza Envelope who survived the horrific inferno last Saturday; and we are terribly worried about the safety and fate of all those missing, kidnapped and abducted – among them peace activist Vivian Silver from Kibbutz Beeri, a member of Women Wage Peace, and Ditza Heyman from Kibbutz Nir Oz, the mother of movement member, Neta Heiman.
We demand that the Israeli government begin negotiations immediately for the release of all those who were abducted. We call on the Red Cross and the international community to ensure their safety and act for their immediate release.
Despite the rage and pain in the face of the criminal and unforgiveable acts committed by Hamas, including incessant shelling of towns all over Israel, we must not lose human dignity. Even in the most difficult situations, it is our obligation as mothers, as women, as human beings and as an entire nation not to lose basic human values.
We hear words of revenge all the time – “all restraints have been removed”, “we will wipe out Gaza”, “we will act brutally”. But one cannot resolve one injustice with another injustice. We grieve the death of innocent Palestinians, among them hundreds of children, who are being killed in this accursed war. The situation in Gaza is getting worse all the time.
This war proves, more than ever, that the concept of “managing the conflict” failed. The idea that dealing with the resolution of the conflict could be postponed indefinitely has been proved to be fundamentally wrong.
For 9 years since the end of “Operation Protective Edge”, we, Jewish and Arab mothers have been telling the leadership in Israel – enough! We must turn every stone in order to reach a political solution. This is our obligation for the future of our children. This is our obligation to both Israeli and Palestinian children. They deserve a future of security and freedom, not a future of death, war and destruction.
Despite the complexity of the issue, we and the Palestinians have no choice but to strive for a resolution of the conflict. The Palestinian people will not disappear, nor will we.
More wars, bombings, assassinations, arrests and a never-ending cycle of bloodshed will not allow us and our children to live here as normal people. All conflicts in the world have been resolved by peace agreements. Hamas acts to destroy any chance for peace. Hamas has already managed to destroy the negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Hamas must not be allowed to win!
We know these words sound imaginary, naïve and unrealistic, but this is the truth, and we must recognize it. Every mother, Jewish and Arab, gives birth to her children to see them grow and flourish and not to bury them.
That’s why, even today, amidst the pain and the feeling that the belief in peace has collapsed, we extend a hand in peace to the mothers of Gaza and the West Bank.
We mothers, together with women from all over the world, must unite to stop this madness.
It is our obligation to say, even if it is difficult to say this now – Israel must consider its steps and actions responsibly and morally and prevent needless deaths of civilians and soldiers and, at the same time, wherever possible, prevent harm to innocent people in Gaza.
We raise difficult questions and expect answers – ground action, destruction of Gaza, forcing one million Palestinians to flee their homes – will all of this lead to a future of security? And what will happen the day after? Isn’t it essential to deal with the issue of the abductees first? Do our leaders have the answers?
We must maintain and strengthen the solidarity and unity between the Jewish and Arab public in Israel and continue to act against racism and hatred. The Arab public, which has lived for years with the internal conflict of being citizens of Israel and being part of the Palestinian people, rallied in this difficult time of crisis for the sake of the entire society in Israel.
We demand that Israel prevent a flare-up in the West Bank and not allow extremist elements from both sides to incite the region, as has already happened this past week.
Last but not least, we will say that even though this is 2023, there are almost no women in decision-making forums in Israel. This is an intolerable situation that must change. We demand that the negotiation team for the release of the abductees include women. It is not possible that only men run the country during this crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZ3VI8TUGY The videoclip of “Home” documents the “The Mothers” as they took part in “The Journey To Peace”. organised by “Women Wage Peace” this last September 2017.
It is imperative for humanity, represented by the United Nations, to prevent the recurrence of the merciless cruelty depicted in the Old Testament during the invasion of Canaan, in the context of the imminent invasion of Gaza.-JB
The invasion of Canaan is a significant event in the Old Testament, specifically in the Book of Joshua. According to the narrative, after being led out of Egypt by Moses and spending 40 years in the desert, the Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, entered the land of Canaan – the “Promised Land” given to them by God.
The Book of Joshua describes a series of military campaigns against various city-states in Canaan, including the famous Battle of Jericho. The walls of Jericho are said to have fallen after the Israelites marched around the city blowing trumpets for seven days, after which they invaded the city.
There are passages that depict the total destruction of some Canaanite cities and their inhabitants. For example, Joshua 6:21 states: “They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”
Some additional quotes from the Old Testament that describe the destruction of Canaanite cities:
Deuteronomy 20:16-17: “But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded.”
Numbers 21:3: “And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.”
Joshua 10:40: “So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the LORD God of Israel commanded.”
Joshua 11:11-12: “And they struck with the sword all who were in it, devoting them to destruction; there was none left that breathed. And he burned Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and struck them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded.”
A few more quotes from the Old Testament that detail the destruction of Canaanite cities:
Deuteronomy 7:2: “And when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.”
Joshua 8:24-25: “When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai.”
Judges 1:17: “Then Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they defeated the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath and devoted it to destruction. So the name of the city was called Hormah.”
Letters to a Jewish Friend of Christ, annotated by Dr. Michael D. Robbins
The article outlines a series of published and unpublished letters written to Roberto Assagioli (referred to as FCD in the text) by Master DK. The letters detail FCD’s assignment to work with the Jewish people as part of his spiritual mission. This task was seen as integral to achieving world peace.
FCD was tasked with helping the Jewish community move beyond historical complexes and a persecution mindset. He was advised to prepare for this work through study, meditation, writing, and networking. However, he was cautioned against starting with the Zionist movement due to its political motives.
The Jews were regarded as the originators of mankind, dispersed throughout all nations with the hope they would eventually cease to identify as Jews through evolution. However, Zionism became a threat to global harmony, operating under the same evil influences as the Germans.
FCD was encouraged to help the Jews relinquish their desire to return to their ancient homeland and instead embrace a spiritual concept of the Kingdom of God without geographical boundaries. His role involved aiding them to see their situation from a different perspective and adjust their attitudes towards life. However, this was expected to be challenging due to the Jewish community’s deep-seated pride, stubbornness, and intellectual approach to subjects.
FCD’s mission required in-depth thought, study, and a solid foundation for future endeavors. The ultimate goal was to help the Jewish community recognize their responsibilities and faults, and move beyond their past.
Overall, solving the Jewish issue is presented as a significant step towards achieving true world peace, an integral part of Master DK’s spiritual work.
Q: Why did the USA support the creation of Israel in 1948?
A: The United States’ decision to support the creation of Israel in 1948 was influenced by a variety of factors:
Humanitarian Response: The revelations of the Holocaust, where six million Jews were killed during World War II, created an urgent need for a Jewish homeland. Many in the U.S. were sympathetic to the plight of the Jewish survivors and supported the establishment of a state where they could seek refuge.
Political Considerations: The issue of Jewish statehood had significant support among the American public, and thus was a matter of domestic politics as well. President Harry Truman, who was up for re-election, recognized that supporting the creation of Israel would be a popular move.
Strategic Interests: Some policymakers believed that the creation of a pro-Western state in the Middle East would serve U.S. strategic interests, particularly in the context of the emerging Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Religious Beliefs: For some Americans, especially among certain Christian communities, the establishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land had religious significance, fulfilling Biblical prophecies.
Diplomatic Influence: By being one of the first countries to recognize the State of Israel, the U.S. aimed to gain influence over the new country’s policies.
However, it’s important to note that the decision was not without controversy. Some officials in the State Department and Department of Defense were concerned that supporting the creation of Israel would endanger relations with Arab countries, potentially jeopardizing access to Middle Eastern oil and creating regional instability1.
Footnotes
Spiegel, S. L. (1986). The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America’s Middle East Policy, from Truman to Reagan. University of Chicago Press. Link↩
Q: Why was the popular support in the USA so high for the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 if Jewish-Americans comprised a small proportion of the electorate?
A: The high level of popular support among Americans for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, despite Jewish-Americans comprising a small proportion of the electorate, can be attributed to several factors:
Humanitarian Sentiment: The horrors of the Holocaust had a profound impact on global consciousness. Many Americans, regardless of their religious affiliation, were sympathetic to the plight of the Jewish people and supported the idea of a safe homeland for them.
Biblical Connection: For Christian Americans, especially among certain Protestant denominations, the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was seen as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. This belief, known as Christian Zionism, contributed significantly to pro-Israel sentiments.
Political Leadership: The stance of U.S. political leaders, including President Harry Truman, who strongly advocated for the establishment of Israel, also influenced public opinion. Truman’s arguments were grounded in humanitarian, moral, and democratic principles, which resonated with many Americans.
Anti-Communism: In the early years of the Cold War, there was a perception that a new Jewish state would be pro-Western and serve as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in the Middle East.
Media Influence: Media coverage in the U.S. of Jewish refugees and the violence in British-controlled Palestine also swayed public sentiment in favor of a Jewish state.
Influence of Jewish-American Community: Despite being a small proportion of the population, Jewish-Americans played a significant role in shaping public opinion through advocacy, lobbying, and fundraising efforts.
It’s important to note that public opinion was not universally in favor of the creation of Israel, and there were debates and disagreements about U.S. policy towards Palestine both within and outside of the government1.
Footnotes
Spiegel, S. L. (1986). The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America’s Middle East Policy, from Truman to Reagan. University of Chicago Press. ↩
Q: Did Jewish-Americans control many media outlets n the USA in the 1940s?
A: The claim that Jewish-Americans controlled many media outlets in the USA during the 1940s is a complex one and requires a nuanced understanding of the time period and the media landscape.
It’s important to note that allegations of Jewish control over media have been used as anti-Semitic tropes throughout history, and such blanket statements can be misleading and harmful.
That being said, it is true that some Jewish-Americans held prominent positions in the American media industry during the 1940s. For example, the Warner brothers, who were Jewish, led Warner Bros. Studios, and Adolph Zukor, a Jewish immigrant, was a key figure at Paramount Pictures. Similarly, in the newspaper industry, Jewish-Americans like Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times, held significant influence1.
However, the presence of individuals of Jewish descent in leadership roles within media companies does not equate to “control” of the media by Jewish-Americans as a whole. Media organizations are complex entities influenced by a diverse range of factors including market demands, government regulations, and individual editorial policies.
Therefore, while it’s accurate to say that Jewish-Americans were represented in the media industry, it would be inaccurate and overly simplistic to suggest that they “controlled” many media outlets in the 1940s.
Footnotes
Gabler, N. (1989). An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Crown. Link↩
Q: Is it fair to say that Jewish-Americans had more influence in the American media industry than Palestine-Americans in the 1940s?
A: Yes, it is fair to say that Jewish-Americans had more influence in the American media industry than Palestinian-Americans in the 1940s. Historically, Jewish immigrants and their descendants have played a significant role in the development of the U.S. film industry, as well as other media sectors1,2.
In contrast, the Palestinian-American community was much smaller and less established during this period. The first significant wave of Palestinian immigration to the United States didn’t occur until after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which is after the time frame in question3. Therefore, their influence in American media during the 1940s would have been considerably less.
However, it’s important to note that influence in the media industry does not directly translate into control over public opinion or policy decisions. Media content is shaped by a variety of factors, including audience preferences, economic considerations, and societal norms.
Support for a two-state solution among Palestinians and Israelis declines to just one-third on each side, along with growing opposition to the detailed items of a permanent peace agreement for implementing a two-state solution. Slightly more Israeli Jews support one unequal state under Israeli rule than the two-state solution; but both publics still prefer two states to any other democratic framework for resolving the conflict. Pairs of reciprocal incentives can raise support somewhat on both sides, showing some flexibility particularly among the Israelis. But trust is declining to new low points, and a majority of Palestinians reject four proposed confidence building measures while a majority of Israelis accepts half of them.
Set on the backdrop of mideast conflict, Jeffrey Brown profiles the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, a musical ensemble that brings Israelis, Palestinians and other Arab citizens together for a common goal of creativity and maybe more. He talks to their founder, renowned conductor and pianist Daniel Barenboim.
Our message of peace must be louder than ever. The greatest danger is that all the people who so ardently desire peace will be drowned out by extremists and violence. But any analysis, any moral equation we might draw up, must have as its core this basic understanding: there are people on both sides. Humanity is universal and the recognition of this truth on both sides is the only way. The suffering of innocent people on either side is absolutely unbearable.
What are the underlying motivations behind love and hate? Can we delve into the intricate web of emotions we encounter and comprehend them through the lens of scientific understanding? Moreover, can we develop models and strategies to proactively combat the dissemination of hatred, likening it to a contagious epidemic, especially in light of the escalating acts of cruelty and torture witnessed in the turbulent region of the Middle East? These thought-provoking questions beckon us to explore the depths of human psychology and seek innovative solutions to foster harmony and compassion in our global community.
Creating a double spiral model of emotions with love and hate at the center can be an interesting way to visualize the spectrum of human emotions. This model assumes that emotions are not binary but rather exist on a continuum, with each emotion having a positive (love-based) and negative (hate-based) polarity.
A spectrum of human emotions
Central Axis (0): Neutral – This is the point where love and hate are in balance. Emotions here could include indifference or apathy.
This model is a simplification and does not account for the complex interplay of emotions in real-life scenarios. The specific emotions and their order could vary significantly based on individual experiences and cultural interpretations.
The Graded Spectrum of Human Emotions
Numerous empirical models exist for classifying and grading emotions.
Out of these, two models stand out by offering a theoretical framework that aligns with general first principles. These noteworthy models are Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions and the Ortony-Clore-Collins (OCC) model.
Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions is a model developed by psychologist Robert Plutchik, which identifies eight primary emotions: anger, fear, sadness, disgust, surprise, anticipation, trust, and joy.
Here’s a brief summary of the model:
Primary Emotions: The wheel is structured with four pairs of polar opposite emotions, forming eight primary emotions. These are Joy vs. Sadness, Trust vs. Disgust, Fear vs. Anger, and Surprise vs. Anticipation.
Intensity: Each primary emotion has an element of intensity, which forms a gradient from the center of the wheel outward. For example, the emotion of “joy” can range from serenity (less intense) to ecstasy (more intense).
Secondary Emotions: Between each of the primary emotions are secondary or complex emotions, which are combinations of the primary ones. For example, “love” is a mixture of joy and trust; “hatred” (“contempt”) is a mix of anger and disgust.
Opposite Emotions: Directly across from each emotion on the wheel is its polar opposite. For instance, joy is opposite sadness, trust is opposite disgust, etc.
The wheel of emotions is often depicted as a colorful circular diagram, illustrating the relationships between these different emotions. It provides a visual tool for understanding our emotions, their intensities, and how they relate to one another. [Source: Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. Harper & Row]
“The Cognitive Structure of Emotions” by Andrew Ortony, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins proposes a cognitive model for understanding emotions. The authors argue that emotions are primarily cognitive and arise from our interpretations and understandings of specific types of events.
The book introduces the ‘Ortony-Clore-Collins’ (OCC) model, which identifies 22 different types of emotions categorized into three groups:
Consequential emotions: These are emotions related to the consequences of events. For example, joy might result from a desirable event, while sadness might result from an undesirable one.
Action-based emotions: These are emotions that arise from actions. For instance, pride might come from approving of one’s own actions, while shame might come from disapproving of them.
Aspectual emotions: These are emotions related to objects or people. For example, love might arise from liking someone, while hate might result from disliking them.
The OCC model suggests that these emotion types are not distinct categories but points on a spectrum. Each type of emotion can vary in intensity based on factors such as the desirability of an event, the praiseworthiness of an action, or the appeal of an object or person.
This cognitive approach to emotions emphasizes that our feelings are closely tied to our thoughts, perceptions, and judgments. It provides a framework for understanding why different people might experience different emotions in response to the same situation, based on their individual interpretations and evaluations of that situation. {Source: Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press] ↩
Fundamental Principles of Cognition Underlying Complex Models of Emotions
Can we derive complex models of emotions, as the ones cited before, from fundamental principles of cognition? Theosophist Bhagavan Das postulates that emotions are desires, and that the two elementary desires are:
i) the desire to unite with an object that causes pleasure; and
ii) the desire to separate from an object which causes pain.
In other words, attraction and repulsion, like and dislike, love and hate, or any other pair of names that may seem best. The very word emotion indicates that in the beginning, at the time the word was formed, the desire-element and the idea of the motion and action consequent on desire were more prominently and truly present in the human mind(s) who first framed and used the word. Emotion is only a form of motion; motion towards an object, or away from it, in the mind, is emotion.
Love, the desire to unite with something else, implies the consciousness of the possibility of such union. Its full significance is this: an instinctive, ingrained, inherent perception by each individual Self, of its essential underlying unity, oneness with all other Selves; unity in the Being of the All-Self, the Supreme Self; and the consequently inevitable endeavour of these individual Selves, these fragments of the one Self, to break through the walls separating each from each, the walls that have disrupted the original “one” into the “many” and thus merge into each other and [rebuild] the single whole. So too the full significance of Hate is the instinctive perception by each Self now identified with a larger or smaller mass of the Not-Self, matter of the non-identity, the inherent separateness of each Not-Self, each atom of Matter, from every other atom, every other Not-Self, and its endeavour to maintain such separate existence at all costs and by all means.
Bhagavan Das, The Science of the Emotions
E-motions are rational motions toward, or away from, painful (repulsion) or pleasurable (attraction) sensations. Emotions are desires either to perpetuate the situation if pleasurable, or to escape out of it if painful.
By defining emotions as rational (intelligent) motions, we’re essentially suggesting that our emotional responses are strategic reactions aimed at maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. These emotions then fuel our desires – to either perpetuate pleasurable situations or escape from painful ones. The anticipation of either fulfilling these desires or failing to do so creates various feelings or moods. This viewpoint provides a unique lens through which we can understand our emotional landscape and how it influences our actions and overall life experiences. However, to comprehensively elucidate the complete range of emotions, an additional dimension must be included in the model. This dimension revolves around the dynamic interplay between the subject and object during the experience of emotions, delving into the intricate power relationship that underlies this experience.
Emotions as Rational Motions: A Strategic Approach to Understanding Human Behavior
Introduction:
The study of human emotions has traditionally been grounded in the realm of psychological analysis, often linked with subjective experiences and inherently irrational behaviors. However, a novel perspective posits that emotions can be considered as rational (intelligent) motions, strategic responses specifically designed to optimize pleasure and mitigate pain. This theoretical framework offers an innovative lens through which we can comprehend our emotional terrain and its influence on our actions and overall life experiences.
Emotions as Rational (Intelligent) Motions:
The paradigm shift from viewing emotions as spontaneous, uncontrollable reactions to considering them as rational motions may revolutionize our understanding of human behavior. By categorizing emotions as calculated strategies, we acknowledge their fundamental role in decision-making processes. Emotions, under this framework, are not erratic or capricious but operate under the principle of utility maximization. They serve as our internal compass, guiding us towards pleasure and away from discomfort, thereby playing a pivotal role in our survival and well-being.
Emotions Fueling Desires:
An integral component of this perspective is the relationship between emotions and desires. Emotions, in their capacity as rational motions, generate and fuel our desires. Pleasurable emotions instigate desires to prolong the gratifying situation, while painful emotions provoke desires to evade the distressing circumstances. This dynamic interplay between emotions and desires underscores the motivational aspect of emotions, driving our actions and shaping our behavioral patterns.
Anticipation and Mood Formation:
The anticipation of either fulfilling these desires or failing to do so gives rise to a spectrum of feelings or moods. The expectation of success or failure in achieving our emotional objectives significantly influences our emotional state. This process of anticipation and mood formation highlights the predictive nature of emotions, allowing us to prepare for potential future outcomes based on our current emotional experiences.
Conclusion:
Understanding emotions as rational motions provides a compelling framework for deciphering the complex world of human emotions and their impact on our actions and life experiences. This perspective not only broadens our understanding of the role of emotions in decision-making and behavior formation but also emphasizes the strategic nature of emotional responses. By recognizing emotions as calculated responses aimed at optimizing our experiences, we gain a more nuanced understanding of our emotional landscape and its profound influence on our lives.
Closed system model
The principle of utility maximization, when applied to emotions, suggests that individuals will act in a way that maximizes their emotional satisfaction or utility. In the case of cruelty, one party may derive some form of satisfaction or perceived benefit from exerting power over another, thus sustaining the emotion.
However, this dynamic changes when we assume the essential equality of all parties involved and remove external factors. In this scenario, the emotion of hate could indeed be self-defeating. If two equal entities are locked in a cycle of hate, they would both expend energy and resources in an attempt to overpower the other, leading to a zero-sum game. This conflict, if sustained, could indeed lead to mutual annihilation, providing no net gain for either party.
Thus, under the paradigm of emotions as motions of attraction and repulsion, sustained hate between equals does not maximize utility and is therefore not a rational strategy. It’s important to note, however, that real-world scenarios are often more complex and involve multiple interacting factors, which can influence the outcomes predicted by this model.
Open system model with binary inputs
External are undeniably present when considering emotions. If we simplify external forces into a binary categorization of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, then the dominance of one over the other could indeed determine the outcome in a power relationship. This model assumes that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are clear-cut and mutually exclusive categories, which can exert influence in a predictable manner.
For instance, if ‘good’ forces predominate, the power relationship could potentially transform into a more cooperative or harmonious dynamic, reducing the intensity of negative emotions like hate and cruelty. Conversely, if ‘evil’ forces are dominant, the power relationship might become more conflict-ridden and destructive, potentially exacerbating negative emotions.
However, it’s important to note that this is an overly simplified model. In reality, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ often exist not as distinct categories but along a continuum, and individuals and situations can embody elements of both. Moreover, the impact of these forces can be subjective and context-dependent, adding further complexity to real-world scenarios.
Continuous model
From a theoretical standpoint, if the model is run indefinitely, even the smallest differential in power between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ forces could eventually determine the outcome. This is based on the premise that over time, even small advantages or disadvantages can accumulate, leading to a significant impact.
In this scenario, if ‘good’ has even a slightly greater influence, it could gradually erode the presence of ‘evil’ and vice versa. The process may be slow and not immediately apparent, especially if the difference in power is minimal. However, given an infinite timeframe, the predominant force, however marginally stronger, could ultimately shape the outcome.
Yet, it’s crucial to remember that this is a theoretical construct. In the real world, factors are constantly changing, and new influences can emerge, shift or disappear over time. Therefore, while this model provides a useful conceptual framework, its predictions should be considered with caution when applied to complex, ever-changing real-world scenarios.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, emotions are often described as primal survival instincts, originating from the pre-cortical limbic system, in response to external stimuli. These instinctual responses, when manipulated by terrorist organizations and irresponsible media outlets and social media, can have severe consequences. For instance, media outlets calling for a delay in gun-control legislation until emotions subside after a school massacre in the United States, while simultaneously advocating for immediate revenge in response to acts of terrorism elsewhere, are engaging in manipulative tactics that play on pre-cortical, limbic responses. Such tactics promote indifference when action is necessary and incite vengeance when measured restraint is appropriate. It is crucial to recognize and address these manipulations to foster a more rational and informed public opinion.
Based on our revised Bhagavan Das model, any outbreak of hatred between equals is self-contained. To prevent mutual destruction, the parties involved must reason and engage in negotiations after inflicting equal pain on each other. However, when an external force disrupts the balance of power, the outbreak can escalate into an epidemic of hatred, resembling a global conflict. It is only when the conflicting parties disarm, or at the very least, have access to equal means of harm, that a just and lasting peace can be achieved – one not imposed by external entities.
In an open system, there are two ways to halt the spread of hatred: a short-term solution being vaccination, and a long-term approach involving tilting the balance towards the forces of good over evil in the world.
The vaccine of goodwill. Once a critical mass of humanity is infused with the energy of goodwill, right human relations will naturally follow – the only foundation for a lasting and sustainable peace.
When the worldwide triangular grid of loveoverpowers the squared grid of hatred, then and only then will humanity have sealed the door where evil temporarily dwells on Earth, an evil of a cosmic astral source.
Humanity’s triumph lies in the moment when the global network of love’s interwoven triangles prevails over the divisive forces of hate. The Triangles service initiative promotes this approach to effectively safeguard our world from any potential pandemic of hatred, averting a third – and last – world war.
I have been in constant contact with leaders in the region. It is clear that the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East is polarizing communities around the world, widening divides, and spreading and amplifying hate. If truth is the first casualty of war, reason is not far behind.
I am horrified to hear the language of genocide entering the public discourse. People are losing sight of each other’s humanity. Brutality and violence cannot be allowed to obscure a fundamental truth: We are all the product of our lived realities and collective history.
António Guterres, the secretary general of the United Nations.
The Potential Precipice of a Third World War
The current international political climate reveals an alarming array of tensions and conflicts that could potentially escalate into a global conflagration, reminiscent of the horrors of the two World Wars. This post will explore these critical issues, focusing primarily on the active military theaters in the Middle East and Ukraine, as well as the tinder points in Taiwan-China and North Korea.
In the Middle East, the enduring Israel-Palestine conflict is a major source of regional instability. The recent escalation, marked by the Hamas attack and the subsequent Israeli retaliation, has exacerbated the situation1. Additionally, the persistent threat of terrorism (Islamist terrorist culture and violent Islamist ideologies, different from the Muslim religion) continues to strain regional stability, contributing to the potential for a broader conflict.
Simultaneously, Ukraine is another active military theater that could ignite wider hostilities. The ongoing territorial disputes and military confrontations with Russia have heightened tensions, threatening to draw in other global powers and potentially triggering a larger conflict2.
Furthermore, the escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, along with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and its volatile relationship with its neighbors and the United States, serve as additional flashpoints that could potentially lead to a broader conflict.
These geopolitical crises underscore the shortcomings of existing international institutions, particularly the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The UNSC, burdened by the veto power of its five permanent members, often finds itself unable to take decisive action in response to significant crises3. Similarly, the UNGA, despite its universal representation, lacks the authority to enforce its resolutions, rendering it largely ineffective in addressing these pressing issues4.
The ICC and the ICJ, while established with the intention of upholding the “laws of war” and ensuring accountability for international crimes, have faced significant challenges in enforcing their rulings. This lack of enforcement capability has raised concerns about their effectiveness and the overall efficacy of the international justice system5.
The aforementioned issues highlight the urgent need for reform within the United Nations. The institution needs to evolve into a more effective body that can not only mediate in conflicts but also enforce international law and resolutions. The current state of global affairs demands a UN with enhanced capabilities and authority.
The potential consequences of these escalating tensions and conflicts are grave, particularly if they culminate in a nuclear conflagration. Such an event would be catastrophic on a global scale, resulting in unimaginable human loss and environmental devastation6.
In conclusion, the world is at a critical juncture. The escalating tensions and conflicts, coupled with the shortcomings of international institutions, present a stark warning. If these issues are not addressed effectively and promptly, the world may find itself on the brink of another global conflict, a prospect too horrific to contemplate. The use of nuclear weapons in any future conflict would not only result in unimaginable destruction and loss of life but could also trigger a nuclear winter, devastating ecosystems, and endangering the survival of humanity itself.
Q: What’s the difference between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?
A: The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are two distinct entities with different mandates:
International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC is an independent international organization, established by the Rome Statute in 2002. It has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression1. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it can exercise its jurisdiction only if the national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). Established in 1945, it settles legal disputes submitted by states and gives advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies2. The ICJ deals primarily with disputes between states rather than individuals.
In summary, the ICC prosecutes individuals for serious international crimes, while the ICJ handles disputes between states and provides legal advice to UN organizations.
Q: Why was the International Criminal Court (ICC) created outside the UN jurisdiction?
R: The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established as an independent entity outside the United Nations (UN) system due to a number of reasons.
Universality and Independence: The ICC was created to have a global reach, free from the influence of any single governing body or political entity. By being independent of the UN, the ICC can act impartially and ensure that justice is served without interference from individual nations or political alliances.
Avoidance of Security Council Veto Power: Within the UN, the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the USA) have veto power over any substantive resolution. This means that if one of these countries (or a close ally) were accused of crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC, they could potentially use their veto power to block action. By being separate from the UN, the ICC can avoid this potential obstruction of justice.
Complementarity to National Judicial Systems: The ICC is intended to complement, not replace, national courts. It can exercise its jurisdiction only if national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes. This principle, known as complementarity, is fundamental to the Court’s operation.
However, it’s important to note that while the ICC is independent, there is a relationship agreement between the ICC and the UN, which allows for cooperation and coordination between the two entities1.
Q: Which countries are not signatories of the International Criminal Court (ICC)? How can the UN Charter be reformed to enforce the “laws of war” among non signatory countries?
A: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal that has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. As of now, there are 123 States Parties to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC1.
However, there are several countries that have chosen not to be part of the ICC. These include the United States, Russia, Israel, Libya, China, and Qatar2. Additionally, four signatory states — Israel, Russia, Sudan, and the United States — have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become parties to the Rome Statute3. There are also 41 United Nations members that have not recognized the ICC, including Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bhutan, Brunei, China, Cuba, among others4. [1]
[When a country signs a treaty, it indicates its intention to comply with the treaty and move toward ratification, but it does not yet make the country a party to the treaty. A country becomes a full party to a treaty only after it has ratified the treaty, typically involving domestic procedures such as parliamentary approval. Therefore, it is possible for a country to be a signatory (having signed but not ratified the treaty) and later decide to revoke its signature, indicating it no longer intends to become a party to the treaty. This is what happened with Israel, Russia, Sudan, and the United States in relation to the Rome Statute.]
Enforcing the “laws of war” among non-signatory countries poses a significant challenge. The UN Charter could potentially be reformed in several ways to address this issue:
Enhancing the Role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the UN, could play a more prominent role in enforcing international law, including the “laws of war”. This might involve expanding its jurisdiction or strengthening its enforcement mechanisms5.
Expanding the Security Council’s Powers: The UN Security Council, responsible for maintaining international peace and security, could be given more powers to enforce the “laws of war”. This could include the ability to refer cases to the ICC, even involving non-signatory countries6.
Creating New Enforcement Mechanisms: The UN could establish new mechanisms to enforce the “laws of war”. For instance, it could create a new international court or tribunal specifically for this purpose7.
However, any such reforms would require the agreement of a majority of UN member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. This is a significant hurdle, given the differing views among countries on these issues.
The present geopolitical climate underscores the urgent need for a reformed United Nations (UN). The UN, as it stands today, has been criticized for its inefficiency and inability to effectively mediate international disputes, and prevent wars. The conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine, and rising tensions in Taiwan-China and North Korea highlight this issue. Furthermore, once wars flare up, the UN’s capacity to enforce the “laws of war” is nonexistent.
The UN, conceived in the aftermath of World War II, was designed to prevent such global conflicts from recurring. However, the world has changed dramatically since then, and the UN must adapt to these changes. The issues we face today are vastly different from those of the mid-20th century. These include not only traditional security threats like wars and territorial disputes but also non-traditional threats such as climate change, pandemics, cyber warfare, and terrorism1.
In light of these changes, the UN needs to undergo significant reforms to become more effective. One area that requires urgent attention is the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC’s structure, with five permanent members wielding veto power, has often led to deadlock and inaction2. Reforming the UNSC to be more inclusive, representative, and transparent is crucial. This might involve expanding the number of permanent members or altering the veto system to prevent individual countries from blocking action on critical issues3. The UN General Assembly must be empowered to override UNSC vetoes by super majority rules.
Another critical area for reform is the UN development system. The 2030 Agenda calls for bold changes to this system, including the creation of a new generation of country teams centered on strategic UN development assistance4. Such reforms could make the UN more responsive and effective in supporting sustainable development and addressing global challenges.
In addition, the UN needs to become more decentralized, less bureaucratic, and more accountable5. This could involve giving more decision-making power to regional and country-level UN offices, streamlining administrative processes, and strengthening mechanisms for accountability and transparency.
In conclusion, a reformed UN could play a crucial role in promoting peace, preventing conflicts, and addressing global challenges. However, achieving these reforms will require the collective will of all member states and a commitment to a new model of global governance suited to the 21st century.
The stages in the Cycle of Conflict could be described as:
Conflict Emergence: This is the stage where a disagreement or difference in interests, values, or goals becomes apparent between parties. It can be triggered by various factors such as resource scarcity, power imbalance, or miscommunication.
Escalation: During this phase, the parties involved in the conflict start to take actions that increase the intensity of the conflict. This include the “Three R’s”:
Retaliation, responding to a perceived offense,
Retribution, seeking justice through punishment, and
Revenge, an emotional response intended to cause harm to the offender, initiating the Cycle of Dehumanization.
Crisis: At this point, the conflict has reached its peak. This is often the most destructive phase, where the cost of the conflict is highest for both parties.
De-Escalation/ Negotiation: In this stage, the parties involved recognize the damage caused by the conflict and begin to seek solutions. This could involve negotiation or mediation to find a resolution that satisfies both parties.
Settlement/Resolution: This is the stage where the conflict is resolved, either through a mutual agreement, intervention by a third party, or one party yielding to the other. The resolution may or may not address the root causes of the conflict.
Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and Reconciliation: After the conflict is resolved, efforts are made to repair relationships, rebuild trust, and prevent the recurrence of conflict. This can involve forgiveness, restitution, and community rebuilding.
Not all conflicts follow this exact pattern, and some stages may be skipped or repeated. The goal should always be to resolve conflicts in a peaceful and fair manner, avoiding the destructive “Three R’s” whenever possible.
The Cycle of Dehumanization in Victims and Perpetrators of Terrorism
Introduction:
Dehumanization, the process of perceiving others as less than human, is a critical component in the discourse surrounding terrorism. This psychological phenomenon is not exclusive to the perpetrators of terrorist acts but is also reflected in the reactions of societies to such acts. This post will consider the intricate dynamics of dehumanization within the context of terrorism, focusing on both victims and perpetrators.
Dehumanizing Victims:
At the heart of the psychology of terrorism lies the process of dehumanization. To inflict harm on innocent people, terrorists must first dehumanize their victims, reducing them to mere objects or symbols representing the ideologies they oppose[^1^]. This process often hinges on propaganda, social influence, and personal experiences of injustice or discrimination[^2^].
Warfare conditions can further intensify this dehumanization, desensitizing individuals to violence and suffering[^3^]. By stripping their victims of humanity, terrorists are able to rationalize their actions, dissociating themselves from the moral implications of their deeds.
Dehumanizing Perpetrators:
Conversely, the dehumanization of the perpetrators of terrorism is an equally prevalent and problematic reaction. Following terrorist attacks, there is a tendency to label the perpetrators as “monsters” or “animals”, effectively categorizing them as subhuman[^4^]. While this reaction may provide a coping mechanism for societies grappling with fear and anger, it comes with significant risks.
This form of dehumanization can perpetuate a cycle of violence and hatred, as dehumanizing language can fuel further radicalization[^5^]. Moreover, it oversimplifies the complex psychological, social, and political factors that contribute to terrorism, hindering our ability to address these root issues effectively.
Conclusion:
Dehumanization, whether of victims or perpetrators, creates a vicious cycle that can perpetuate violence and conflict. While it may provide a temporary emotional reprieve, it ultimately obstructs our ability to understand and respond to terrorism in a constructive manner. To break this cycle, we must recognize the full humanity of all involved, even when their actions appear inhuman. By doing so, we can foster empathy and understanding, paving the way towards more effective strategies for preventing terrorism and promoting peace.
Desensitization, Anodynia, and Terrorism: A Psychological Perspective
Introduction:
Understanding the psychological factors contributing to acts of terrorism is crucial in efforts to prevent such violent incidents. Two such factors are desensitization—becoming less reactive or sensitive to stimuli—and anodynia—a state of dulled emotional responsiveness or indifference. This section will explore how these psychological states might contribute to acts of terrorism.
Desensitization:
Desensitization to violence can play a significant role in the development of terrorist behaviors. Constant exposure to violent imagery, rhetoric, or real-life experiences can lead to a diminished emotional response to such stimuli[^1^]. This process can make individuals more accepting of violence as a means to achieve their goals, as they no longer perceive it as shocking or abhorrent[^2^].
In the context of terrorism, individuals may become desensitized to the suffering of others, viewing violence not as a tragic act but as a necessary tool for their cause. This can lower the psychological barriers that would normally prevent someone from harming others[^3^].
Anodynia:
Anodynia, or emotional numbing, can further exacerbate this issue. It is often a response to prolonged periods of stress or trauma, serving as a psychological defense mechanism[^4^]. In this state, individuals may feel detached from their emotions, making it easier for them to commit acts of violence without experiencing guilt, remorse, or empathy for their victims.
An individual suffering from anodynia might also be more susceptible to radicalization, as they may seek out extreme ideologies or actions to feel something[^5^]. This makes them prime targets for recruitment by terrorist organizations, who can exploit their emotional numbness for their own ends.
Conclusion:
Desensitization and anodynia can contribute significantly to acts of terrorism by reducing the psychological barriers to violence and facilitating radicalization. Understanding these processes is key to identifying individuals at risk and developing effective interventions. It’s important to foster environments that promote empathy, respect for human life, and peaceful conflict resolution to counteract these psychological phenomena.
President Biden did say: “We uphold the laws of war — the law of war. It matters. There’s a difference.” Indeed, there is. Let’s hope that Pres. Biden has conveyed to Mr. Netanyahu — in the most forceful way —that collective punishment is a crime of war, as evil as genocide and hostage-taking, according to the “laws of war.”
Q: Doesn’t the recurrent practice of acts of cruelty against human beings make the perpetrator subhuman?
A: This is a complex question that can be approached from a variety of perspectives.
From a strictly biological standpoint, recurrent acts of cruelty do not change a person’s human status – they remain a member of the Homo sapiens species, regardless of their actions.
From a moral or ethical perspective, it’s more complicated. Some might argue that individuals who repeatedly commit acts of cruelty are behaving in ways that are inhuman or “subhuman,” in the sense that they are violating basic principles of human decency and respect for life. However, labeling these individuals as “subhuman” can be problematic, as it risks dehumanizing them in the same way that they have dehumanized their victims. It’s also worth noting that even people who commit terrible acts may be capable of change and redemption.
From a psychological perspective, recurring cruel behavior could indicate a severe lack of empathy, which is often associated with personality disorders like psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder. This doesn’t make someone “subhuman,” but it does suggest that they may have significant mental health issues that need to be addressed.
In conclusion, while recurrent acts of cruelty against human beings are deeply troubling and unacceptable, it’s important to approach this issue with nuance and humanity. Labeling perpetrators as “subhuman” may oversimplify the problem and hinder efforts to understand and address the root causes of their behavior. In situations of legitimate self-defense, it is necessary to neutralize terrorists — even killing them — while still recognizing their intrinsic humanity.
Their atrocities do not justify your atrocities. The brutality of their war crimes does not lessen the brutality of your war crimes. Their inhumanity drives your inhumanity which drives their inhumanity further, on and on until the world around you burns to the ground and beyond.
The civilian toll from fighting in Israel-Palestine on the weekend has been devastating, even by the appalling standards of the decades-long conflict.
This latest round of extreme violence began on Saturday, when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups breached the fences separating Gaza and Israel. They attacked nearby Israeli communities, infiltrated homes, apparently shot civilians en masse, and took scores of Israeli civilians as hostages into Gaza.
They also reportedly launched more than 3,000 indiscriminate rockets towards Israeli population centers.
Mass violence is continuing as I write, and the civilian death toll keeps rising.
Of course, everyone realizes this conflict did not start at the weekend, however unprecedented the current levels of violence.
Israeli authorities have systematically repressed Palestinians for decades and since 2007 have imposed a crushing closure on Gaza’s population. Gaza – a 40-by-11 kilometer (25-by-7 mile) strip of land – has essentially been an open-air prison for more than 16 years.
What’s more, Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory have recently faced perhaps unprecedented repression. During the first nine months of 2023, Israeli authorities killed more Palestinians in the West Bank in 2023 than in any year since such UN records began in 2005.
As of October, the number of Palestinians being held in Israeli administrative detention without charges or trial based on secret information reached a 30-year-high.
The Israeli government’s systematic oppression in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, coupled with inhumane acts committed against Palestinians as part of a policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians, amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.
However, does this years-long, inhuman repression justify brutal attacks by Palestinian armed groups? No. Never. It may be part of the background, but it is not an excuse.
The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups, their indiscriminate attacks, and their taking of civilians as hostages amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law.
On Saturday, Israel’s energy minister announced Israeli authorities would no longer provide electricity to Gaza’s 2.2 million residents. This and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is also a war crime.
I know partisans in this conflict will accuse me of “bothsidesism” here, but this is the way international law is supposed to work. The laws of war apply to all sides in a conflict.
The real problem – the reason this conflict goes on and on – is that those laws are not applied in reality. It’s the same with standards of international law in general, including respect for fundamental human rights. People keep committing serious crimes on all sides, and perpetrators keep getting away with it.
During prior rounds of hostilities, Human Rights Watch documented serious violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces and by Palestinian armed groups.
It’s hard to see how the cycles of violence in Israel-Palestine – brutality repaid with brutality, again and again – will ever end without justice for crimes like these.
In 2021, the prosecutor of International Criminal Court (ICC) opened a formal investigation into serious crimes committed in Palestine, which is a member of the ICC. The current fighting highlights the urgent need for the prosecutor to accelerate their investigation into serious crimes by all sides.
The sooner governments around the world understand that justice is essential to peace and the sooner they make justice their top priority for the region, the sooner there might be some hope these horrors will end.
The New Group of World Servers is characterized by a balanced, nonpartisan point of view, which in no way negates calling out injustice, and the affirmation of human rights. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
LIBRA KEYNOTE:
“I CHOOSE THE WAY WHICH LEADS BETWEEN THE TWO GREAT LINES OF FORCE.”
Let Light, and Love, and Power restore Right Human Relations, Goodwill, and Peace on Earth.
Terrorism is not defeated with more terrorism. This principle does not deny the right for self-defense after an act of aggression, but does deny any self-righteous response of vengeance inflicting cruelty on the aggressor. The goal of a just world is to restore right human relations in a spirit of goodwill, not to further aggravate conflicts.
To this end, nations must take decisive steps to work together to identify and confront global terrorist threats before they spiral out of control. International cooperation must be carried out with transparency, respect for human rights, and an understanding that only one culture is superior to all others: the culture of nonviolence over violence, including structural violence.
Roger Cohen, the NYT-Paris bureau chief, has dedicated an impressive 33 years to The Times, contributing as a foreign correspondent, editor, and Opinion columnist. His assessment of the current Hamas-Israel War does not justify the deplorable, premeditated terrorist attack of Hamas against defenseless civilian population in southern Israel, but puts it in historical perspective.
In summary, Cohen describes how the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has escalated, resulting in a significant invasion of Israeli territory by Hamas forces – the most extensive in decades. This situation has delivered a severe psychological shock to Israel, prompting questions about its army, intelligence services, government, and its ability to manage the Palestinian population within its borders. The war, initiated by a Hamas assault that has claimed up to 700 Israeli lives, is not perceived as a fight for the state’s survival like the wars in 1948 and 1973, but has nonetheless provoked deep-seated fear. Israelis are reportedly shaken, expressing outrage at both Hamas and their own political and military leadership for allowing this situation to unfold. Critics argue that a country as powerful as Israel should have been able to prevent such events, particularly 75 years after its creation. The government is accused of failing in its primary duty: protecting its citizens’ lives.
According to Danny Yatom, a former head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, the longer-term test for Israel lies in its ability to manage its relationship with the Palestinians. He argues that Israel’s security cannot be solely military; it must also address the political and humanitarian aspects of the Palestinian issue. He suggests that until there is a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel will continue to face challenges like the recent attack by Hama.
Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer living in Haifa, asserts that the failure lies in Israel’s inability to recognize the rights of Palestinians. She highlights that Israel’s focus on maintaining control and suppressing Palestinian resistance, instead of addressing the root causes of the conflict, is a fundamental issue. Buttu suggests that until Israel acknowledges the rights and demands of Palestinians, peace will remain elusive.
The only way to build lasting peace is for all sides to come together at the negotiating table with open minds, ready to compromise and move forward in a spirit of understanding and mutual respect, unlike what the corrupt Abraham Accords pretend to accomplish disrespecting the Palestinian plight. Only then can we put an end to this cycle of violence and create a more just world for all. However, the veto-infested Security Council of the United Nations has failed to provide such negotiating table and to enforce international law. Therefore, an arms race has ensued to impose by military force what reasonable compromises could solve.
Israel’s control over more than 2.6 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and its grip on Gaza, where another estimated 2.1 million Palestinians live, could be described as institutionalized bloodshed. In August, Israeli forces launched a three-day offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip, during which, according to Amnesty International, war crimes were allegedly committed.
Despite the initial unlawful occupation of Palestine by Zionist forces, a mistake of the United Nations called out by the planetary spiritual Hierarchy,
a two-state partition is the only nonviolent option remaining on the negotiating table for a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States must relinquish its role as an advocate of Zionism and join — on equal footing — an international initiative to address the conflict in a balanced way, with justice for all sides. And no, a complete siege of Gaza is not a solution to the conflict. Such a short-sighted response would probably escalate the violence, creating a humanitarian crisis of genocidal proportions. Indeed, terrorism is not defeated with more terrorism.
Taking hostages was the end-goal of Hamas. They cannot defeat Israel militarily, but their suicide attack today had political, not military goals. It has been this way since Israel fought its war of Independence in 1948. Militant Palestinian militias have launched thousands of suicide attacks on Israel. In a series of articles I wrote from Israel and Lebanon back in 1974 and 1975, I called it a terrorist war, but as the saying goes, one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.
“The power of our united light prevents the appearance of the glamour of separateness. The power of our united light negates the quality of the glamour from affecting man. The power of our united light destroys the life behind the glamour.”
The potent influences of anger and fear in politics can serve to separate us, deter us from engaging in challenging dialogues, and hinder our advances on crucial matters. It’s essential that we acknowledge the strength of these emotions and strive towards constructing an improved society. This can be achieved by identifying methods — based on facts, evidence, and truth, rather than emotions or personal beliefs — to reconcile our disparities and cultivate mutual comprehension in polarizing issues, such as:
Gun Control: This issue has consistently been a contentious point between conservatives, who often advocate for minimal restrictions on gun rights, and progressives, who generally favor more comprehensive gun control measures Pew Research Center.
Reproductive Rights: This is another area where there are sharp differences. Progressives typically support access to safe and legal abortion and other reproductive health services, while conservatives tend to oppose abortion and favor more restrictions Pew Research Center.
Wokeness: The concept of wokeness, tied to an awareness of social and political injustices, aligns more closely with progressive values. However, it’s often critiqued by conservatives as being overly sensitive or unnecessarily divisive ABC News.
Climate Change: Progressives generally view climate change as a serious threat and advocate for strong government action to combat it. Conservatives often express skepticism about the severity of climate change or oppose extensive government intervention Pew Research Center.
Healthcare: Progressives typically support a larger role for government in providing healthcare, such as a single-payer system. Conservatives usually favor a free-market approach to healthcare Brookings.
Immigration: This is another highly polarizing issue, with progressives generally favoring more inclusive immigration policies and conservatives often advocating for stricter immigration control Pew Research Center.
This ranking is not absolute and can vary over time and across different regions or demographics within the US. Furthermore, there’s a range of views within both the conservative and progressive camps on each of these issues. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of truth — one that takes into account context, interpretation, and the potential for different perspectives — would be needed.
By bridging the gaps that exist among us and fostering meaningful exchanges, we can transcend the confines of anger and fear, thereby building a more fair and just world. However, it is imperative that we denounce any ideology that fuels these negative emotions as detrimental to societal harmony.
MAGA: Make America Great Again
The Cult
Steve Bannon is often considered one of the key ideologues of MAGA Trumpism. As a former chief strategist for President Trump and executive chairman of Breitbart News, he played a significant role in shaping the populist, nationalist agenda that has come to define Trumpism.
Here are some of the main tenets associated with Bannon:
Nationalism: Bannon is a known advocate for American nationalism. He believes in prioritizing American interests and argues for policies that protect American industries and jobs.
Populism: Bannon’s ideology includes a distrust of elites and established institutions. He champions the rights and interests of the ‘common people’, often positioning them against a perceived out-of-touch elite.
Economic Protectionism: Bannon advocates for policies that protect American industries from foreign competition. This includes support for tariffs and other trade barriers.
Immigration Control: A key part of Bannon’s ideology involves stricter immigration policies. He argues that mass immigration can undermine national identity and economic stability.
Theory of Cycles in History. Steve Bannon’s belief in the Theory of Cycles in History, as influenced by “The Fourth Turning” by William Strauss and Neil Howe, is based on the idea that history moves in cycles of about 80-100 years, each cycle consisting of four ‘turnings’: High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis.
Bannon’s sources are diverse, drawing from various political and philosophical traditions. He is known to be an avid reader and often cites a wide range of authors and works in his speeches and writings, including everything from ancient Greek and Roman texts to contemporary political and economic analyses.
Interestingly, the theory of 20-year cycles in history would correspond to the 20-year synodic cycle of Jupiter and Saturn.
In Richard Tarnas’ book “Cosmos and Psyche”, he explores archetypal cosmology, which is a post-Jungian elaboration of the form of depth psychology that was initiated by Carl Gustav Jung’s theory of archetypes. Tarnas uses archetypal cosmology to explore how cosmic patterns (such as the movements of planets) might provide narratives of meaningful coincidences related to human affairs.
Within the framework of archetypal cosmology, the 20-year synodic cycle of Jupiter and Saturn is viewed as a pivotal time for societal evolution. The conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which happens every 20 years, can be meaningfully correlated to shifts in cultural, political, and economic landscapes. These periods are characterized by significant transitions and transformations in society.
In the book, Tarnas presents numerous historical examples tied to archetypal cosmology, including the Jupiter and Saturn cycle. He also discusses the conjunction of other planets, such as Saturn and Pluto, and their potential meaningful correlation with societal events.
According to the Theory of Cycles, history moves in cycles of:
High: This is a period of prosperity and strength where a new social, economic, and political order is established.
Awakening: This is a period where people start pushing against the established order, leading to cultural and spiritual change.
Unraveling: This is a period of growing individualism and weakening social structure.
Crisis: This is a period of upheaval and possible destruction where the old social order is replaced by a new one.
Bannon, influenced by this theory, believes that America is currently in the ‘Crisis’ period of its cycle. He sees signs of this crisis in various societal trends, including economic inequality, political polarization, and the rise of populist movements. Bannon believes that the current societal tensions would escalate into a full-blown conflict, another Civil War, out of which the MAGA ideology would emerge triumphant by the rule of the minority. Therefore, the more chaotic the course of events, the better, such as promoting the current chaos in the House of the People of the Dis-United States of America.
According to Nate Cohen (NYT), the Republican party has evolved significantly over the past eight years, moving away from the Ronald Reagan’s three-legged stool of religious right, fiscal conservatives, and neoconservative hawks. The party is not entirely a populist conservative MAGA monolith either, with only 37% of Republicans being part of Trump’s loyal base.
The Right Wing represents about 28% of Republicans. This group is comprised of very conservative individuals who frequently view Fox News or Newsmax. They strongly believe that America is on the brink of catastrophe and are ardent supporters of Donald Trump. They favor strict immigration rules and conservative social policies.
Blue Collar Populists account for approximately 12% of Republicans. This group is mainly located in the North, holds socially moderate views, but is economically populist with deeply conservative perspectives on race and immigration. Like the Right Wing, they are strong supporters of Mr. Trump and share his pessimistic outlook on the country’s direction.
Based on a New York Times/Siena College poll, the Republican party today can be divided into six groups:
Moderate Establishment (14%): These members are typically highly educated and affluent, with socially moderate or even liberal views.
Traditional Conservatives (26%): This group is extremely conservative across all issues, including economics, foreign policy, and social issues. They are the most loyal to the party and its traditional values. Despite their conservative leanings, this group is not as fervent in their support for Trump as some other segments of the Republican Party. They may disagree with Trump on certain issues, but they largely see him as a better alternative to Democratic candidates. In terms of demographics, Traditional Conservatives are often older and more likely to be white compared to the general population. They also tend to be more religious and are more likely to be from rural areas.
Right Wing (26%): Very conservative, disproportionately evangelical, believe America is on the brink of catastrophe, and are fervent Trump supporters. These individuals are typically very conservative, watch outlets like Fox News and Newsmax, and believe that America is on the brink of catastrophe. They are disproportionately evangelical and have a strong loyalty to Donald Trump. Furthermore, they are skeptical of climate change and generally oppose government intervention in the economy.
Blue Collar Populists (12%): This group is predominantly located in the North and holds socially moderate views. They also share former President Donald Trump’s highly pessimistic view of the country’s direction. Blue Collar Populists tend to be working class, often without a college degree. They are more likely to be affected by economic changes, such as job losses due to automation or globalization. As a result, they often support populist economic policies aimed at protecting American jobs and industries.
Libertarian Conservatives (14%): Disproportionately Western and Midwestern conservatives who value small government, are socially moderate, isolationist, and show lower levels of Trump support. They often differ from other Republicans in their more moderate views on social issues, such as drug legalization and same-sex marriage. Interestingly, Libertarian Conservatives show less support for Donald Trump compared to other Republican factions. This could indicate a preference for politicians who embody their specific blend of fiscal conservatism and social moderation. On policy, Libertarian Conservatives generally oppose government intervention in the economy. They are likely to support tax cuts, deregulation, and free trade agreements. At the same time, they may be more open to immigration and less hawkish on foreign policy than other Republican groups. Their political stances can sometimes put them at odds with the party’s more traditionally conservative or populist factions.
Newcomers (8%): They are a younger, more diverse group compared to other Republican factions. They display a notable dissatisfaction with the state of the country and hold moderate views, often opposing the “woke” left. This group is not conservative in the traditional sense but leans Republican. On social issues, the Newcomers are more progressive. Their unique blend of moderate and progressive views, combined with their youth and diversity, may influence the direction of the Republican Party in years to come.
Trump’s dominance of the Republican Party is based on an alliance between the Right Wing and Blue-Collar Populists, which represent nearly 40% of Republicans and about two-thirds of Trump’s MAGA base. Therefore, the majority of Republicans don’t align with the extreme viewpoints often associated with the MAGA movement. However, when presented with a binary choice, most would still choose to support Trump.
The rise of Nazism in Germany was significantly influenced by a pervasive sense of anger and fear among the populace, which was exploited by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Here’s how:
Treaty of Versailles: After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles imposed heavy reparations and territorial losses on Germany. Many Germans were angry about what they saw as an unfair treaty, creating a fertile ground for extremist ideologies like Nazism Britannica.
Economic Hardship: The Great Depression in the 1930s led to massive unemployment and economic hardships, causing widespread fear and uncertainty. The Nazis capitalized on this fear, promising economic stability and jobs BBC.
Political Instability: The Weimar Republic, the democratic government established in Germany post-WWI, was seen as weak and ineffective. Fear of political instability and a return to war also played into the hands of the Nazis, who promised strong leadership and national unity United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Fear of Communism: The Nazis exploited the fear of Bolshevism and the spread of communism, positioning themselves as the bulwark against this perceived threat. This fear was particularly potent among middle and upper-class Germans Facing History and Ourselves.
Anti-Semitism: Hitler and the Nazis stoked existing anti-Semitic sentiments, blaming Jews for Germany’s problems. This manipulation of fear and anger towards a scapegoat unified certain segments of the population and helped solidify Nazi power United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Nationalism and Racial Superiority: The Nazis propagated the idea of Aryan racial superiority and German nationalistic pride. They capitalized on anger over perceived humiliation from WWI and fear of losing national identity BBC.
In summary, the Nazis effectively manipulated and exploited the anger, fear, and desperation felt by many Germans during this period to rise to power.
God grant, therefore, that those Germans who have vision may join the forces of those who are seeking to free Germany and the German people from the imposed tyranny of the evil Lodge, working through their seven representatives in Germany. Once the Germans who are living free lives in other lands can think in terms of humanity as a whole and not in terms of national glamours, revenge or self-pity, then their voices will be added to those of the other free peoples and to those of the aspirants and disciples in all other nations. – EOH 302
The cause of the widespread cruelty, terror, murder and agony rests squarely on the shoulders of the seven men in Germany. – EOH 326
You ask who these seven are: Hitler, von Ribbentrop, Goebbels, Goering, Hess, Himmler and Streicher—names well-known to you all. -EOH 258
The Externalisation of the Hierarchy (EOH) by Alice A. Bailey
[Nate Cohn, NYT] More than 20 million people with a college degree voted for Donald J. Trump in 2020. In our last New York Times/Siena College poll, 13 percent of likely Republican primary voters were self-identified moderates or liberals with a college degree.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana
Q: How would a post truth world enable the fall of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism?
R: In a “post-truth” world, where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals and personal beliefs, the potential for the erosion of democratic principles and the rise of authoritarianism is significant. Here’s how:
Undermining Trust in Institutions: Post-truth politics can lead to a decline in trust in key democratic institutions such as the media, judiciary, and electoral systems by constantly questioning their legitimacy and spreading misinformation. This can create a power vacuum that authoritarian leaders might exploit Sage Journals.
Manipulation of Public Opinion: In a post-truth environment, leaders can manipulate public opinion more easily by appealing to emotions, biases, and prejudices rather than relying on factual accuracy. This can enable authoritarians to consolidate power by exploiting fears and divisions E-IR.
Creation of Alternative Realities: Post-truth politics allows for the creation of alternative realities where false information is presented as truth. This can be used by authoritarian regimes to control the narrative and suppress dissent Redalyc.
Erosion of Democratic Discourse: Post-truth politics can erode meaningful democratic discourse by replacing fact-based debates with emotionally charged rhetoric. This can stifle critical thinking and informed decision-making, elements crucial to a thriving democracy Degruter.
Exploitation of Uncertainty: The ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in a post-truth environment can be exploited by authoritarian leaders to present themselves as the only source of stability and order, even if this involves curtailing freedoms and democratic processes Niskanen Center.
To sum up, a post-truth world can undermine the foundations of democracy – trust in institutions, informed citizenry, and robust, fact-based discourse – creating conditions that will enable the rise of authoritarianism.
Yet, we also stand on the promise of an alternate future filled with growth, optimism, and abundance. This new era would be characterized by the rule of the ageless wisdom, the exploration of new frontiers, and the fulfilment of the Four Freedoms, balanced with self-discipline, social responsibility, and long-term planning.
The critical question remains – which path will humanity decide to tread? Back to materialism, or forward to the rise of a New Civilization?
In 2020, a significant shift occurred in the 20-year synodic cycle of Jupiter and Saturn. This event is often referred to as the “Great Conjunction” or the “Great Mutation.” What made the 2020 Great Conjunction particularly noteworthy was the transition from Earth signs to Air signs, marking the beginning of a new epoch.
The conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn have occurred in Earth signs (Capricorn, Taurus, Virgo) for approximately the last 200 years. This period was characterized by an emphasis on material growth, industrial development, and the exploitation of natural resources.
However, in December 2020, the Great Conjunction took place in Aquarius, an Air sign. This marked the start of a new 200-year cycle during which all the 20-year Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions will occur in Air signs (Aquarius, Gemini, Libra).
The shift from Earth to Air is seen by many archetypal cosmologists as indicative of significant changes in societal focus and development. The Earth cycle is often associated with materialism, tangible assets, and practical concerns, whereas the Air cycle is linked with intellect, information, technology, and social ideals. This shift suggests a collective movement from a focus on the material and industrial world towards a greater emphasis on intuitive development (Agni Yoga), spiritual techniques (Practice of the Presence) , communication (Telepathy) , and social progress (Laws and Principles of the New Age).
In essence, the 2020 Great Conjunction may have signaled the ushering in of a New Civilization, characterized by the qualities archetypally associated with Air signs.
Laws and Principles of the New Civilization
The Law of Right Human Relations is a fundamental concept that calls for respect, understanding, and harmonious relations between individuals. It breeds the idea that every human being has inherent worth and dignity, and it is our collective responsibility to uphold these values in all our interactions. This law is pivotal for fostering a world that is free from prejudice, discrimination and conflict.
The Principle of Goodwill embodies the concept of benevolence, kindness, and a genuine desire to promote the well-being of others. It is more than mere philanthropy; it is an attitude, a way of life that encourages positive actions aimed at improving the social fabric of humanity.
The Law of Group Endeavor advocates for the power of collective action. It emphasizes that when we unite and work towards a common goal, we can achieve far more than what is possible individually. This law is a testament to the strength of unity and shared effort.
The Principle of Unanimity underlines the importance of consensus. It doesn’t imply uniformity of thought but rather a collective agreement on a shared vision or objective. It encourages dialogue, collaboration, and decision-making processes that honor everyone’s voice.
The Law of Spiritual Approach refers to the pursuit of spiritual growth and enlightenment. It emphasizes that the journey towards higher consciousness requires sincere effort, discipline, and a dedicated approach. This law outlines the path towards self-discovery and spiritual development.
The Principle of Essential Divinity acknowledges the divine spark present within each of us. It suggests that every individual carries a piece of the divine, thus implying an inherent goodness and sacred value in all of us. This principle seeks to inspire respect for all life forms and promotes a sense of interconnectedness.
These principles and laws strive to foster a world that is united, respectful, enlightened, and works towards the common good. Understanding and practicing these principles contribute to creating a harmonious and spiritually enriched society.
The Crisis of Governability: A Call for the Rise of the Moderate Center
As we navigate through the turbulent waters of the current political landscape, one thing becomes increasingly clear – the United States is facing a crisis of governability. This crisis is not an isolated event, but rather a symptom of deeper issues threatening the foundations of our democracy.
The rule of the minority presents a fundamental challenge to the democratic principle of majority rule. It seems paradoxical that in a country built on the idea of “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” a minority can impose its will on the majority. This imbalance of power has resulted in heightened political polarization, with the extreme right and left dominating the discourse while the moderate center is marginalized.
The time has come to address this crisis head-on, and one potential solution lies in the rise of the moderate center. Moderates, by their nature, tend to be pragmatic and value compromise over conflict. They are more inclined to seek common ground and build bridges across the political divide. Their rise to power could serve as a much-needed counterbalance to the extremes on both ends of the political spectrum.
A government led by moderates would prioritize dialogue and consensus-building over partisan warfare. It would focus on developing policies that benefit the majority, rather than catering to the interests of a select few. This approach could help restore faith in our democratic institutions and ensure that the voices of all citizens, not just a vocal minority, are heard and considered.
However, for this vision to become a reality, we need to address the systemic issues that have given rise to the rule of the minority. This includes reevaluating our electoral system to ensure it accurately reflects the will of the majority, as well as the legislative process to ensure that the will of the majority rules no matter what party holds the power of the gavel.
In the end, the crisis of governability is not just about who holds power, but how that power is exercised. It’s about fostering a political environment where dialogue and compromise are valued over conflict and division. It’s about ensuring our democratic institutions work for all citizens, not just a select few. And most importantly, it’s about reaffirming our commitment to the principles of democracy that form the bedrock of our nation. The path to achieving this may be challenging, but with the rise of the moderate center, it’s a path worth pursuing.
The group of moderates from both parties in the U.S. House of Representatives is called the Problem Solvers Caucus. This bipartisan group, as per their official website, is committed to finding common ground on many of the key issues facing the nation.
Solar Eclipse and the Crisis of Governability: A Symbolic Rebirth
As we grapple with the ongoing crisis of governability, we find ourselves on the brink of a significant celestial event – the October 14, 2023 solar eclipse.
This phenomenon, where the moon momentarily obscures the sun, holds profound symbolic resonance when viewed through the lens of our current political climate.
In archetypal symbolism, the sun represents authority, power, and the conscious mind, while the moon symbolizes the past, emotions, and the subconscious. The forthcoming solar eclipse (‘New Moon’) can be seen as a metaphor for the current crisis of governability – the lunar forces (dragging us to the past) temporarily obscuring the sun (a future hierarchical democracy).
However, a solar eclipse is not a permanent state. It’s a transition, a moment of darkness before the sun re-emerges, brighter than ever. This can be a potent symbol of hope and renewal in our troubled times. As we navigate through this period of political eclipse, we can view it as an opportunity for the ‘sun’ to rise again, reclaiming its rightful place and restoring balance.
This ‘rebirth’ of the sun can be associated with the rise of the moderate center. Just as the sun returns after the eclipse, so too can the moderate center emerge from the shadows of extremism. The eclipse, then, serves as a powerful reminder that even in the darkest times, change and renewal are possible.
The solar eclipse also invites us to leave behind what no longer serves us, much like the moon fading away during the eclipse. It challenges us to let go of the polarizing politics of the past and embrace a more balanced, inclusive future. It’s a cosmic nudge to move forward, not backward.
In conclusion, the forthcoming solar eclipse can offer valuable insights into our current political crisis. It serves as a stark reminder of the temporary nature of imbalance and the inevitable return of equilibrium. It’s a symbolic call to action for the moderate center to rise, just as the sun does post-eclipse, and guide us towards a more balanced, inclusive future. Let this solar eclipse be an opportunity for us to realign our politics with the principles of democracy, and allow the ‘sun’ to rule once again.
LIBRA KEYNOTE:
“I CHOOSE THE WAY WHICH LEADS BETWEEN THE TWO GREAT LINES OF FORCE.”
Let Light, and Love, and Power restore Right Human Relations, Goodwill, and Peace on Earth
