Three Unshakeable Pillars of American Foreign Policy

3 Apr

 

 

It deserves to be noticed that it is only the two anti-establishment candidates who have challenged the foreign policy consensus that has guided American politicians ever since the end of World War II: consistently express unconditional support for the Pentagon, Wall Street, and Israel (especially since the 1967 War).

 

Bernie Sanders has been the first serious presidential aspirant for several decades to challenge directly and unabashedly at least one of these pillars by way of his principled and concerted attacks on Wall Street, on the billionaire class, on the exploitative 1%. Although moderate overall, Sanders has been respectfully deferential to the other two pillars, Pentagon and Israel. Because he has mobilized an intense following among all categories of American youth there has been a media reluctance to assault his substantive views frontally, except to offer a variety of snide remarks that cast doubt on his ‘electability.’

 

Such a dismissal pretends to be pragmatic, but the polls indicate that Sanders would do better against likely Republicans than Clinton. This leads me to interpret the refusal of the corporatized mainstream to take Sanders seriously, at least so far, as a coded ideological attack, basically a reaction to his anti-Wall Street stand that can be viewed as the opening salvo of class warfare.

 

Donald Trump has encountered a somewhat different firestorm but with a similar intent. At first, when the cognoscenti dismissed him as a serious candidate, he was welcomed as a source of entertainment. When his popularity with primary voters could no longer be overlooked, he was challenged by a steady flow of condescending rebukes that question his competence to govern (rather than his electability) or to be a commander in chief. Again his cardinal sin, in my judgment, is not the extraordinary mobilization of a proto-fascist populism that relishes his anti-Muslim immigration stand, his xenophobic call for a high wall on the Mexican border paid for by Mexico, and his proposed revival of torture as a necessary instrument of anti-terrorism. Most hard core Trump supporters have been long hiding out in a closet until The Donald stepped forward with aplomb and a strident willingness to be politically incorrect. As with Sanders, but seemingly more capriciously and less convincingly, Trump has agitated the guardians of all three pillars, unlike Sanders with a programmatic assault, but more obliquely with provocative comments here and there. He manages to convey, although by way of his many off hand and unrehearsed asides, a heretical state of mind with respect to the received wisdom that has been guiding the country since World War II regardless of which party’s president sits in the oval office.

 

Of the Pentagon, his heretical views seem spontaneous challenges to settled policies. Trump appears to look with some indifference, if not outright approval, at the prospect for further proliferation of nuclear weapons, specifically in relation to Japan and South Korea. Such a comment is regarded as imprudent even if never meant to be acted upon as it makes the so-called ‘nuclear umbrella’ seem leaky to those accustomed to its protection, and more importantly, casts some doubt on American global commitments around the world.

 

Similarly, casting doubt on the role of NATO in a post-Cold War world, asking for the Europeans to pay more, is seen by the Beltway wonks, as both an unacceptable public rebuke to allies and an even more unacceptable failure to take seriously the threat being posed by a newly belligerent Russia that flexed its muscles in the Ukraine, and then Syria. Trump’s skeptical attitude toward NATO was particularly resented as it seemed insensitive to the bellicose slide toward a new cold war that had been gathering bipartisan momentum in Washington.

 

Beyond this, Trump showed little appreciation of the way the Pentagon community views the war on terror. Although war planners likely welcomed the Trump promise to rebuild America’s armed forces so as overcome their alleged decline during the Obama presidency. What bothered the Washington policy community was Trump’s skepticism about such mainstays of American foreign policy as military intervention and regime-changing missions. At one heretical high point Trump even hinted that it would be a good idea to divert Pentagon dollars into infrastructure investment here in America. Annoyed listeners among the guardians might have detected in such a sweeping assertion a disguised, if confused, nostalgia for a revival of American isolationism.

 

Of the Wall Street pillar, Trump is perhaps more seriously worrisome, although not at all in the Sanders’ mode. Trump trashes the international trading regime that has been such an article of faith at the core of ‘the Washington consensus’ that gave substance and direction to neoliberal globalization in the latter stages of the prior century. His views of the world economy clearly favor the nationalist sort of protectionism that is widely held responsible for the Great Depression. Beyond this, Trump seems intent on challenging the terms of trade with China in ways that could expose a disastrous American vulnerability to Chinese countermeasures, especially given their enormous dollar holdings. Although the foreign policy approach to China endorsed by the guardians is ready, if not eager, to confront China on the island disputes in the South China Sea, it does not want to disrupt the enormous economic benefits and continuing potential of orderly relations with the Chinese market. From this perspective, Trump’s aggressive deal-making approach to global economic policy is viewed as highly dangerous.

 

Trump has even made the Israeli pillar quiver ever so slightly by suggesting at one point that he favored neutrality in approaching the relations between Israel and Palestine. He sought to override this unwelcome and uncharacteristic display of judiciousness, by making a fawning speech at the AIPAC annual conference. Yet Trump’s willingness to follow the intimations of his gut must have probably made ardent Israeli advocates yearn for the likes of Clinton and Cruz who have mortgaged what’s left of their soul on the altar of subservience to the lordship of Netanyahu and his extremist cohorts.

 

The candidates who pass the litmus test associated with the three pillars approach are clearly Clinton and Kasich, with Ryan on the sidelines waiting to be called if gridlock ensues at the Republican Convention. Cruz would also be treated as an outlier if it were not for Trump preempting him by this assault on the three pillars. Cruz is hardly the kind of candidate that the guardians prefer. His evangelical religiosity is outside the political box, as is his imprudent stance toward engaging international adversaries, crushing enemies, patrolling Muslim communities, and endorsements of waterboarding. It is not the sort of image of America that the guardians wish to convey to the rest of the world.

 

Sanders is grudgingly admired for his authenticity, but grounded politically for assailing Wall Street and cruel capitalism in ways that threaten the established economic order (universal health care, free public university tuition) with initiatives popular with many voters.

 

For months the guardians assumed that Trump would self-destruct but instead he kept dominating the field of presidential hopefuls among the Republican ranks. Unlike the Clinton control of the Democratic Party machine, the Republican Party bureaucracy has been ineffectual in stemming the Trump tide. For this reason media and establishment reinforcements were called upon, and even President Obama joined the chorus of Trump detractors, not because he overtly opposed to the activation of fascist populism but to relieve pressures on the three pillars consensus.

 

The voters in Wisconsin and elsewhere still have an opportunity to push back. If Sanders should win by double digits on Tuesday, it will create a quandary for the guardians. To have to depend on Clinton’s support among the super delegates for the nomination would be such an anti-democratic rebuff of the Sanders’ constituency that not even Sanders could effectively control the backlash. Many of the Sanders’ faithful would sit out the election no matter what their leader urged, rejecting the lesser of evils plea.

 

If Trump should prevail, even narrowly, it looks as though the Republicans will find themselves swallowing hard while being forced to select a candidate unacceptable to themselves. Such an outcome would also probably mean kissing goodbye to any hope of regaining the White House, leading the main party effort to be directed at holding on to control of Congress.

 

Actually, this primary campaign reveals a dismal underlying situation: in a healthy democracy all three pillars should long ago have been shaken at least as hard as Sanders is currently challenging Wall Street. This benevolent challenge mounted by Sanders is a sign that America may be finally getting ready for a genuinely revolutionary challenge, although the grassroots strength of the Trump legions creates the menacing alternative possibility of a fascist counterrevolution. Such radical options are at this point no more than remote possibilities. The persisting probability is more of the same, most likely under Democratic Party auspices. In this respect, the three pillars seem secure in their dysfunction for the foreseeable future. We who lament this can only wish that this dysfunction does not achieve political maturity in the form of global catastrophe.

 

I have not dwelled on the lesser of evils argument that makes Clinton seem a vastly preferable alternative to a wannabe reactionary like Trump or Cruz. Even if we fear Clinton’s warmongering past, we could at least expect better judicial appointments, more positive initiatives on health care and women’s rights, and more informed and balanced assessment of foreign economic policy. Whether this is enough to overcome our distaste for Clinton’s wanton opportunism and instinctive militarism, is something every citizen will have to ponder on her own if the choice comes down to this next November.                            

29 Responses to “Three Unshakeable Pillars of American Foreign Policy”

  1. ray032 April 3, 2016 at 11:13 am #

    Another astute analysis of the way things are, if not they way we want them to be.

    I thought this is a clever parody or satire of the Trump Candidacy released on April Fools Day.

  2. Brewer April 3, 2016 at 2:15 pm #

    ” the threat being posed by a newly belligerent Russia that flexed its muscles in the Ukraine”
    After considerable reading on the subject, I have found rather more evidence of Western interference in the domestic politics of the Ukraine, carefully and judiciously countered by Russia with great restraint. Given the great respect I have for your knowledge and experience Richard, I’d be grateful if you could tease this one out a bit.

    • Richard Falk April 3, 2016 at 4:28 pm #

      I am sympathetic with your reaction, and probably should have made a more cautious statement on Ukraine,
      and will consider further. Thanks for this comment.

      • Kata Fisher April 4, 2016 at 6:53 am #

        Professor Falk, you should have done so – and this is why:

        There was some priest with the crucifix on the streets where angry folks were rioting in Ukraine. They had a legitimate concern and actually did not tempt locals to heated radical/nationalist hate.

        Also, at the time, Russian Foreign policy was not the law breaker. In fact, what they did in Ukraine/Crimea was a legit ecclesiastical interference because had it not been Russian interference Ukraine/Crimea would be a civil war zone, and Russia would be major displacement zone.

        It is Illegal in Church age to allow for civil wars; rather a limited timidity interference would be lawful and even helpful. In addition to that, Russia would have had Spiritual concern and authority to interfere in the area of Ukraine/Crimea with their foreign policy. Therefore, they did not create unbearable chaos for the local population.

        Those folks that believe that they should create wars in order to move/ disperse population (mixing the seed of Man and seed of Beast) are insane satanic prophets.

        Also, those who believe that it should be allowed for the major killing of the civil population, and illegal arming of locals/civilian population, first – then some interference are insane satanic prophets. They believe in “cutting off” the wicked/sinners with the sword of war (some of their evil/satanic interpretation of the prophecy) for the Church age.

        Perhaps, you should give analysis why Russia is, and it is not legitimate world leader with the foreign policy they have – and what is that of benefits to the region and the world as well as danger. In the case of Ukraine/Crimea – Russian foreign policy was no lethal threat to the local population.

      • Gene Schulman April 4, 2016 at 9:11 am #

        I agree, Richard. Perhaps a discussion with your colleague Stephen Cohen from Princeton could fill you in. I think he is most right on the Ukraine situation.

      • Richard Falk April 4, 2016 at 11:25 am #

        Steve is very reliable on all things Russian, including the Ukraine. I am reluctant to bother
        him as I am fairly clear on the situation, although it is a huge mess susceptible to many spins
        from a range of viewpoints.

  3. peteybee April 3, 2016 at 2:57 pm #

    For anyone sympathetic to the lesser-of-two-evils argument, I think that the time for that (if there is one at all) would be during the general election. During the primaries, voting for anyone other than the candidate who represents one’s ideals would be foolish. That’s because without pressure from non-“centrists”, there is no motivation for any deviation from the status quo, for either of the mainstream D/R candidates.

  4. Beau Oolayforos April 4, 2016 at 2:04 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,

    It seems to me that the term ‘isolationism’ has been, unfortunately, hugely successful. It succeeds in branding those who oppose foreign wars or military alliances as obtuse, head-in-the-sand, backward-thinkers. The Swiss or the Swedes can be neutral, but in the USA, that philosophy is “isolationist”.

    “Internationalism” has been even more successful. It conjures up cosmopolitanism, toleration, mutual give & take among nations, as opposed to the (allegedly) sullen autarky of isolationism.

    The truth is exactly the opposite. Please, God, if it isn’t too late, spare us the internationalism of the PNAC, and give us the ‘isolationism’ of Bob Taft.

  5. rehmat1 April 4, 2016 at 5:55 pm #

    Dr. Falk, as usual, the American voters have no other alternative but to chose between the ‘GOP or Democrat Evils’. Green Party candidate Jill stein has no chance to win, as she is only one who is against all three powerful lobbies you mentioned.

    The ‘Evils’ may differ on the Pentagon or the Wall Street – but they’re all 101% behind the Zionist regime. As for as Jill stein is concerned – she is a ‘self-hating, Israel threatening’ Jewish lady.

    Ukraine’s story is not much different than Libya, except the first is a Christian-majority nation while the later is 99% Muslim.

    Last month, Ukraine parliament asked prime minister Arseniy ‘Yats’ Yatsenyuk to step down. Earlier, country’s president Petro Poroshenko asked him politely. It looks like Washington is set to replace him with the current finance minister Natalie Jaresko.

    Ukraine plunged into crisis last month when Aivaras Abromavicius, the economy minister resigned after accusing president and prime minister of blocking anti-corruption reforms.

    On March 10, Kenneth Rapoza said at Jewish Forbes magazine: “And now rumor has it that ‘our guy Yats’ will be replaced by ‘our girl Natalie’ in Kyiv’s musical chairs.”

    Born into a Ukrainian immigrant Jewish family like the other three dudes mentioned above, Natalie Jaresko is a former employee of US State Department. She took Ukraine nationality in 2014 to become a cabinet minister….

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/12/ukraine-to-get-us-jewess-pm/

    • Brewer April 5, 2016 at 2:53 am #

      The truth of this matter has been glaringly obvious for quite some time now.
      Why do opinion-makers resist it?
      Actually it is easy to understand when one has been exposed to the dynamics of the bureaucratic mind, the imperative to remain within the effective fold. Surely a dilemma for lovers of truth.
      Should I tell the truth and resign any power I possess or should I remain effective while withholding truth.
      I learned this doing Aid work in corrupt, failed States.

      • Kata Fisher April 5, 2016 at 8:10 am #

        A Note:

        Universities should and can be neutral (It was said at least twice / repeated serval times on this blog – I recall). How can Public Funding remove curent strongholds around Universities and change the direction of the Free Governments.

        It is noted by John that opinion-makers are Governments and Universities:

        “The Crisis of Civilization was uploaded to highlight the overwhelming about of scientific information pointing to human extinction by 2030.
        Governments and Universities they control are in denial.
        I wish it wasn’t so!”

        “Category
        Science & Technology
        License
        Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)
        Remix this video”

        I am not sure how can Bernie Sanders activate “no more war” policy, rationally.

        Further – those war making policies are distracting from actual, rational threats (see the video).

  6. Jerry "Peacemaker" April 4, 2016 at 8:59 pm #

    Bernie Sanders said “no more war”. What further evidence do voters need to vote for him?

    • rehmat1 April 5, 2016 at 4:08 am #

      How many times Benjamin Netanyahu declared Iran was about to make a nuke within next three years; next two years, and next year – since 1992?

      https://rehmat1.com/2015/09/01/bernie-sanders-a-con-zionist-jew/

      • Kata Fisher April 5, 2016 at 8:23 am #

        Rational humans do not believe in things that they do not understand. In contrary, those who are not rational humans do believe in most hilarious things.

        I personally do not believe in purgatory. Why? I do not understand it. Surely, if there were enough rational evidence to the existence of the purgatory – I would reconsider my disbelief!

      • rehmat1 April 5, 2016 at 11:18 am #

        @ Karta Fisher

        It’s a discussion forum and not your church ‘confession box’.

      • Kata Fisher April 5, 2016 at 11:39 am #

        Whatever.

        http://www.amazon.com/Room-Ones-Own-Virginia-Woolf/dp/1614272778

    • Kata Fisher April 5, 2016 at 12:00 pm #

      John Noted:

      “Published on Mar 22, 2016
      Despite a concerted effort by the U.S. Empire to snuff out the ideology, a 2016 poll found young Americans have a much more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.
      Though he died 133 years ago, the analysis put forward by one of the world’s most influential thinkers, Karl Marx, remains extremely relevant today. The Empire’s recent rigged presidential election has been disrupted by the support of an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, by millions of voters.
      To find out why Marx’s popularity has stood the test of time, Abby Martin interviews renowned Marxist economist Richard Wolff, Professor Emeritus of Economics at UMass – Amherst, and visiting professor at the New School in New York.
      Prof. Wolff gives an introduction suited for both beginners and seasoned Marxists, with comprehensive explanations of key tenets of Marxism including dialectical and historical materialism, surplus value, crises of overproduction, capitalism’s internal contradictions, and more.
      Watch teleSUR’s The Empire Files every Friday.
      FOLLOW // @EmpireFiles // @AbbyMartin // @telesurenglish
      LIKE // https://www.facebook.com/TheEmpireFiles
      Music by Fluorescent Grey
      Category
      People & Blogs
      License
      Standard YouTube License”

      Further,

      I just recently thought on this:

      Universities can be neutral, but not independent? Or can they be independent? – Independent from the public law/s? Furter, what is the ground/ core rule for the law/s that governs Academic Freedom? It would have to be some law/s in substance – and no law/s of fiction? What exactly is fiction, and is it what claims to be: fiction?

  7. ray032 April 5, 2016 at 11:01 am #

    Some of you may recall the prayer I have been praying often, for the last 6 months or more, mentioned in a previous article.

    I rephrased that prayer in another way commentating in an RT article about a US Boxing Promoter coming out and saying Donald Trump scammed him out of $2,500,000 twenty years ago.

    I posted this comment in RT 3 times. I added the last sentence after it was deleted the 2 previous times.

    “Recently, among my constant prayer to the Eternal, would be to see the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Christ Jesus, “Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.” It must be important, because it is recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke.”

    This article is an example of what I had in mind in that prayer. Another ‘sign’ is the Revelation of the Panama leak, a treasure trove of documents about secret wealth hidden away from the taxman, so the Middle Class and Poor have to pay more. The exposure of Secret Swiss Bank Accounts will really expose how corrupt this world has become.

    Seeing the prayer and prophecy is activated, I expect to see so many whistle-blowers, Obama and others like him at the top of the Social-Economic-Political-Pyramid System of this World, won’t be able to jail them all for the real transparency they show, and not the phony slogans promising transparency politicians use to get votes from gullible, unthinking, uninformed people.

    Moderator/Censors may be able to block the letter, but they cannot block the Spirit!”

    https://www.rt.com/sport/338229-bob-arum-donald-trump/

    • Kata Fisher April 6, 2016 at 8:57 am #

      This is what Old Order Catholic Priest/s are saying on few relevant issues:

      • Kata Fisher April 6, 2016 at 9:22 am #

        Also, Additional Doctrinal Apologetics of the Authentic Catholic Church:

        http://www.the-pope.com/smokeofa.html

      • ray032 April 6, 2016 at 10:33 am #

        First of all Kata, I see no relevance in your comment in reply to the substance or what it has to do with my comment. Only you can clarify that.

        But I did watch the whole video, and this “Conservative” Priest, in my view, would be one of those describing Christ as Christ said of that type of inverse Religious Leadership 2000 years ago;
        The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
        It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house (Christ Jesus) Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
        Matthew 10:24-25

        This Father Jack Ashcroft, in this video, is essentially saying the Pope is the Devil/Beelzebub himself, or of the household of Beelzebub or of the household of Christ, depending on your point of view and understanding of those verses of Scripture.

        I think he is of the same mindset of the Conservative Old Guard in the Vatican who eliminated Pope John-Paul 1 after only 1 month, taking charge and implementing his progressive vision of Christ for these Days. He abdicated the Pope’s throne and Coronation, saying The Pope is just a simple Priest, in such a gigantic leap of Faith after 1000 years of Catholic Tradition and Conservatism.

        Listening to him sounded like an Israeli Hasbara agent in places, and he would naturally want to destroy a man who prayed at the Israeli Apartheid Wall for those fully human beings who are actually poor and oppressed, of the kind Christ comes to relieve, in the 38 year Israeli Military Dictatorship in the Occupied territories, where Israel has the upper hand Economically, Militarily, Politically and Legally over Palestinians, but it’s all the Palestinians fault, because they will not roll over and play dead, and offering no Resistance to the occupation and land grab.

        There were times where it seemed to my hearing, the interviewer, when saying ‘Jack Ashcroft,’ I heard jackasscroft.

        This Blog bears record, before it took root and made public in the real world, and adopted by the PLO and the UN as the Time Line, I prophesied there were only 3 years, and then 2 years left, before Israel must declare a Jubilee Year after 50 years, or it’s days are numbered.That means preparing for it NOW. Israel is going in the opposite direction in my view and understanding.

        I embedded the video of the original Francis appearing before the Pope when I published this article in 2011.

        In the Time Line, Francis became Pope two years after the article, with his Papacy starting on March 13, 2013.

        In the past, newspapers printed I have a “trademark” on No. 13!
        Personally, more than any other, I have good reasons to be wondering about the co-incidences and facts. What are the odds?

        You can see the video of Francis appearing before the Pope in the Year of the Lord 1012, in this Year of the Lord 2016 in the following article/link.

        THE IMPERIAL POPE
        February 26, 2011

        https://ray032.com/2011/02/26/the-imperial-pope/

      • Kata Fisher April 6, 2016 at 11:19 am #

        To me it looks as this:

        Both

        I am not sure what POPE Paul VI did. I looked at his writings and did not find to much of heresy in it, some errors.

        and I am sure that Pope Benedict XVI had prophetic warning to them – to remove the sin from the Church.

        To me it seems that Pope Benedict XVI gave them over to devil – all along with Pope Francis. They are acting outside Judicial Person on the Changes of to The Church Order and Teaching.

        “Judicial Person” in the Terminology of the Church Order is difficult.

        I know what is “Judicial Person” in the Church.

        When I left home, I always feel that there was something wrong with some of the the Churches – but at that time I really did not understand the term “The Smoke of Anti-Crist” in the Church.

        That priest could be hasbarish, as you saying – but he would not teach against Globalism & Socialism – as American? (his culturally conservative background?) – or would he, as hasbarish Israeli agent? I do not know.

        Look at this – some facts by odd individual – I actually e-maild him once, and he told me about Mother Angelica’s charismatic issues:

        The Pope is Bishop (actually)

        I do not think that Francis is ALL to the “Judicial Person” without other Bishops of the Church.

        This is what they do and it seems that they do not know what is going on:

  8. rehmat1 April 6, 2016 at 6:54 pm #

    @ray032

    With no offense intended – as a Catholic Mission graduate, I can assure you that the authors of four Gospels were not the disciples of prophet Jesus (as). They wrote the Gospels centuries after the disappearance of Christ and stamped them with the names of four members of Church of Nazerene.

    Dr. Robert Funk, DDD, was of the same opinion.

    How corrupted is Catholic Church?

    Last year, Vatican released a new Fatwa, entitled, The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable, stating that since Jews (not the Banu Israel aka Hebrew tribes) are the bearers of God’s command and as Bible’s ‘Chosen People’, they don’t need to believe in Messiah (Christ) to receive “Salvation through Church”.

    The Fatwa forbids missionaries to preach Christianity to Jews because later were already blessed by God before the arrival of Christ. It also claim that the Church of Rome is part of Israel.

    David Brickner, executive director of Jews of Jesus, has condemned Vatican’s Fatwa, saying that Jews do need to accept Christ as Son of God to receive Salvation. He said that St. Paul would be ashamed of this Fatwa.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/12/15/vatican-jews-dont-need-christ-to-be-saved/

    • Kata Fisher April 6, 2016 at 7:11 pm #

      Authentic Gospels are preserved (by Word, by Letter and by the Traditions that were passed down) written and re-written in the Apostolic Order Spiritual authority, under guidance and direction of God’s Spirit, and so it is interpreted – The Same Spiritual Authority that First Generation of the Way / Apostolic Church had.

      We never converted anyone to the Faith of the Church and Apostolic Order of the Church without the Full Baptism of God’s Spirit – in the Baptism of Jesus Christ of Nazareth – the Only Baptism that was given to the Church / Way for humanity after Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

      However, this Baptism is only received/can be received by the Authentic Apostolic Church Order. This Baptism is permanent in Bloodlines, and it can not be revoked – the Spiritual Line that is grafted in never can be grafted out. It remains solid, and it is never erased from full providence by Spirit of God.

      Those who are not Authentic Church do not know anything about the Gospels

      • Richard Falk April 7, 2016 at 5:40 am #

        Kata: Please do not send comments not relevant to the posts..

      • Kata Fisher April 7, 2016 at 9:07 am #

        Professor Falk,

        You write:

        “Kata: Please do not send comments not relevant to the posts.” and
        “Ray: Please limit comments to matters relevant to posts.”

        I find this irrelevant to the “whole person” approach. There are many reasons to that.

        Yesterday, I wrestled with something, and I had to tell Ray about it, as well because – as some it was relevant to things that he said.

        But I have to tell you and everyone here about something

        But the Pretzel Discourse may be irrelevant:

        Last night, my teenager made me make pretzels after 8:30 pm – and by the time I completed cooking – just for her and her irrational munchies half of the recipe … she did not even had any just because it was to late – sure enough, it was after 10:00 pm that I was done with cooking and cleaning after all that.

        I really do not even care to hold control over undecided teens.

        But as I was making a pretzel, I had a nagging feeling that I had to tell you about something – and I just did not go about it because at the moment I was going about making the pretzels.

        Had it not been kitchen mess on my hands – I would tell you about this:

        Translations are authoritative, but not authentic.

        There were some grave harm changes to the Old Testament Scripture, and I know that you should know this, as well as all others:

        A Generation of Jews changed the Name of God in Old Testament /Hebrew Scripture (A.D., and about by the end of the first Generation of Jews the Authentic Name for God was taken out from the Old Testament Scripture).

        Due to the prosecution of the Christianity/Church by Rome’s Empire and as well as others their destruction of the Church and its property / Scrolls, Church Lost Authentic Old Testament Copies because they did not preserve and keep on preserving them in Hebrew Language.

        So, we only Have Codex of Rome – and anything else preserved as it it.

        The Background on grave harm changes to the Old Testament (in 3 video-links):

    • Richard Falk April 7, 2016 at 5:41 am #

      Ray: Please limit comments to matters relevant to posts..

  9. Gene Schulman April 7, 2016 at 3:12 am #

    Richard,

    Must we all really be subjected to this religious nonsense by Kata and Ray? None of their spewings have anything to do with subject of your posts, and frankly are quite offensive and insulting to many of us. You have already lost more than one intelligent reader because of this. I, too, am considering dropping out. I am beginning to think they are as bad as the hasbarists that formerly lodged her, and should be encouraged to set up their own web-site where they can kneel at the alter without disturbing the rest of us who value your secular insights and wish to discuss them.

    • Kata Fisher April 7, 2016 at 9:18 am #

      Dear Gene,

      I have to assure you that I was never part of the lodging crowd. I only moved here in 2005, with three little kids, and already married.

      But I have to tell you this – about a scandal: One year we had a mandatory Christmas party, and one of the guys that my husband was working with – his wife was a former diplomat.

      By the end of the evening, some folks were so drunk, and they had to get that lady of another ladies husband because she was all over him. It was ridiculously hilarious, and not funny. The girl was drunk! No, she was not drugged and drunk. I am sure of that fact.

      So, I can somewhat relate to the wild imaginations you have about all profanity taking place. Although, we do differ so much more in our view and approach.

      Perhaps, do this: You do not even believe that I could ever be friends with such drastically habituated intellectual as yourself, Gene.

      However, the Church may or may not tell you about things that may or may not be relevant to the human race survival, and going on for another while.

      Look, I am telling you about things – just in small fraction/s of my actual capacities. Meaning, I am not even using authority of the Name of God, and I can absolutely do that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: