The source of Xi Jinping’s inner peace
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
As the US and China are becoming more and more hostile to each other, it seems that all countries have to pick a side of either the US or China. Which side will or should your country pick?
Vince Dhimos certificate from Mandarin Chinese (language) & Chinese Culture, History, National Taiwan Normal University (Graduated 1990)
It is inaccurate to say that the US and China are “hostile to each other.” Only the US is hostile. China waxes neither hot nor cold. It is not led by its emotions. China is imbued with the ancient Confucian ideal of harmony and also with a certain ideal of equanimity and calm, as exemplified by a traditional Chinese folk tale titled 塞翁失馬 (Sāi Wēng Shī Mǎ), which tells a story as recited at a web site
Sai Weng Shi Ma 塞翁失馬 • Eve Out of the Garden
Sai Weng lived in the northern frontier of China. One day one of his horses disappeared. His neighbours came out to console him, “poor Sai Weng, he has lost a horse.”
But the old man was not sad, “Hmmmm…..this may not be a bad thing….”
Days later his horse returned of its own accord, bringing with it another, even better horse. Once again his neighbours came out, this time to congratulate him on his good fortune.
But he was not quick to gloat. “Hmmmm….this is not something worth celebrating. Obtaining a horse may be a stroke of bad luck.”
Sai Weng’s son loved the new horse, and he was good at taming the wild horses. But one day, he fell from the horse, breaking his leg. Once again Sai Weng’s neighbors came out to console him after hearing the bad news.
But the old man replied, “Hmmmmm…..it is still hard to say if this broken leg is calamity or good fortune.”
Sometime later China went to war with the northern barbarians, and all the young men were commanded to go to war. The war went on for years, and many young men were killed, but Sai Weng’s son was not drafted into the war because of his broken leg, and so he remained living a peaceful life.
As this Chinese story illustrates, sometimes bad luck turns out to be good, and sometimes good luck turns out to be bad.
This ancient wisdom is something very few Westerners understand, political ideologists least of all.
And here is the Chinese wisdom in response to your question:
It doesn’t matter which side your country comes down on. The Chinese will always be the Chinese and will always remain unmoved by whatever the winds of fortune may bring their way. 800 million workers will rise at dawn and set their noses to the grindstone every day to solve their problems with common sense and calm, ignoring the fierce US and its satellites as they beat their breasts and knock themselves out trying to defeat them. For they are neither friend nor foe, they are and forever will remain the Chinese
China’s is a winning strategy whether you are for it or against it. But if you are for it, you win. If you are against it, you lose.
THE DEIR YASSIN MASSACRE: ISRAEL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUNDED WITHOUT IT AND IT COULD NOT HAVE SUCCEEDED WITHOUT EVANGELICAL SUPPORT
The Founding of Israel: Deir Yassin massacre
by Vince Dhimos
Below is an excerpt from our article on the beginnings of the Israeli state, posted here:
I wrote that article to show American Evangelicals – about 80% accept the teachings of the cult we call Christian Zionism – just what it is they are supporting when they enthusiastically encourage their government to send lethal arms and billions of free dollars to the secular state of Israel, in the conviction that they are helping God to make Biblical prophecies come true – as if God could not handle the job Himself. My humble message to these folks is that God doesn’t need our help to make His prophecies come true. He is self-sufficient.
If you read the excerpt below with an open heart and mind, you will have to wonder how it is possible that Jesus would want His followers to aid and abet brutal murder and theft of land by secular Israelis, 65% of whom have said in polls that they have no religion. After all, if you subscribe to something called “Christian” Zionism, then you are suggesting that Jesus supports this cult-like teaching. But as we showed here, Jesus taught exactly the opposite of Zionism as it is manifested today. What these good Evangelicals don’t know is that, when Palestinians in the occupied territories publicly protest the ethnic cleansing that drove them from their land, the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) is trained and instructed to shoot a certain number of them – be they children, women or men, it doesn’t matter – to discourage them from continuing the protest. And this is the very essence of what Zionism has always been. I will therefore say without reservation whatsoever that anyone considering themselves Christian and calling this barbarian behaviour “Christian” Zionism is committing a blatant act of blasphemy! Only God knows if He can find it in His heart to accept them as Christians or not but it occurs to me that America in particular is now experiencing a plague of sorts, like the ones sent to Pharaoh when he refused to obey. And what are Christians to obey? It should be obvious: the commandment that Jesus said was the greatest of all, love your neighbour as yourself. Evangelicals are not only ignoring it, they are trampling it under their feet.
As you read this grisly description below, ask yourself whether Jesus is really behind Zionism – or is it the work of Satan? It’s not a particularly hard question. Genuine Christians are supposed to be able to consult with the Holy Spirit in such matters, and if they conclude that they are to put Israel above Jesus and urge their government to keep sending lethal arms to Netanyahu to kill more Palestinians, then they are saying that the Holy Spirit disagrees with Jesus, and that is not possible.
Deir Yassin was not the only scene of a massacre committed by Jewish gangs such as the Irgun, the Stern Gang and the Haganah. Enough of these atrocities were eventually committed in 1948 that 700,000 Palestinians were terrorized sufficiently to force them off their ancestral land and into refugee camps. And that is why there is tension today between Arabs and Jews, not because Arabs are anti-Semitic or hard to get along with. Put yourself in their place. After all, if we pursued the Israeli line of reasoning, then we would have to permit native Americans to enter US towns and slaughter white inhabitants and force them back to Europe. No other country has been founded on this principle of resurrecting a nation that had been dead for 2000 years by going in to their ancestral homeland and driving out the people who have lived there for centuries. The UN would not permit such an atrocity and neither would the US. But because US Evangelicals stand behind secular Israel no matter what, based on a creative exegesis of the scriptures, the US government feels obliged to allow this atrocity and even support it with billions of dollars of tax money every year. Trump promised he’d give Israel whatever it wanted – but never once pledged allegiance to Christ, and Evangelicals “Christians” declared he was anointed by the Almighty. And the real shocker is that Biden too has promised to keep the billions flowing into the coffers of Israel – a country with a higher per capita income than the US and with universal free health care! The University of PA site Lldi.upenn.edu writes:
In 1995, Israel became the second-to-last country of the developed world to provide health care insurance coverage to all of its citizens, leaving the U.S. as the only holdout.
But the US can afford to give Israel every year $3.8 billion stolen from US tax payers.
The issue of whether Israel has the right to exist is generally falsely and slyly framed as the question of its right to be a nation-state.
Therefore, people who discuss this issue always present it as a nationality problem, but that is irrelevant in the real human rights context, which is invariably ignored. Specifically, what is ignored is the cold-blooded murder of human beings by the Zionist terrorist gangs as a prerequisite to the founding of Israel. The rationale for this heartless view of the Palestinians is that they are Muslims and are therefore the enemy of civilization. The parallel with the Samaritans in Jesus’ day is unmistakable. This view dominates US right-wing politics today and is held unquestioningly among most Americans who consider themselves conservative Christians.
This is the main reason Palestinians’ right to life is ignored by Western commentators.
Meanwhile, the Zionists slyly remind us that Palestine is not a distinct identity and that the Palestinians have never had a nation of their own, but that Israel had been a nation millennia ago. Therefore, if supposedly follows that the Arabs who had occupied Palestine for millennia prior to the arrival of the Zionists from Europe and elsewhere simply had to go. Immediately. Because they were trespassers on land that they mistakenly thought was theirs. Simply because it was. And the methods used to expel them were, of course, unimportant. This Zionist mentality, fully supported by the majority of US Evangelicals, set the stage for the gruesome murder of hundreds of the people unfortunate enough to have been born in the territory claimed by the Zionists and their allies in Britain and the US in the decades leading up to the UN declaration of Israel as a state. Without these murders, there would have been no state of Israel. But Jesus’ teachings would have been upheld. America made the choice to shove Jesus aside but they kept the name “Christian” for themselves.
The US has a very large population of Evangelicals, who consider themselves “Christian” Zionists, who make up the largest voting bloc in the US and have managed to capture the current president who grovels more submissively to Israel than any other president in US history, and is now flirting with a big war against Iran, just to please Israel. I have detailed the problem of this dangerous cult and its fatally flawed and Satanic reading of the scriptures here:
The important question regarding Israel – the one that is ignored by all parties involved – is: did the Arabs who were living in Palestine at the beginning of the 20th century have the right to live? Or did the Zionists have the right to kill them? In this context, the question of their right to be a nation fades into the background. But it is very important if the Arabs had the right to live or if they had the right to stay in the land where they lived when the Zionists and the British came and forced them to leave at gun point. This puts the anger of the Palestinians in a different light.
Jesus once asked: will I find faith when I return?
The following is our translation from Spanish:
Prologue of the book "Violence and terror of the Zionists, before and after the State of Israel", Editorial Canaan
"The horror of Jewish terrorism ..." Golda Meir
On 9 April, 69 years will have passed since the entry of the hordes of Zionist Khazars in Palestine and of the massacres and crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinian populations. There were no war crimes because there was no war. These were undoubtedly imprescriptible crimes against humanity that still await justice and condemnation of their perpetrators: Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and their murderous gangs.
The great Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez, in a memorable letter, awarded Menahem Begin and his general Arik Sharon with the "Nobel Prize for Death," for their responsibility in the massacres in the Palestinian neighbourhoods of Sabra and Shatila, in the Lebanese capital Beirut in 1982. [https://imemc.org/article/66121/]
Dr. Teresa Aranguren,  in an enlightening book, recounts the events that took place, and I want to extract from her book only a few moving paragraphs:
"On April 9, 1948, the armed groups Irgun and Stern (whose leaders included two future prime ministers of Israel, Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir) carried out the massacre of the inhabitants of Deir Yassin. [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/MAGAZINE-testimonies-from-the-censored-massacre-at-deir-yassin-1.5494094 Testimonies From the Censored Deir Yassin Massacre: 'They Piled Bodies and Burned Them'
A young fellow tied to a tree and set on fire. A woman and an old man shot in the back. Girls lined up against a wall and shot with a submachine gun. The testimonies collected by filmmaker Neta Shoshani about the massacre in Deir Yassin are difficult to process even 70 years after the fact]
The delegate of the Red Cross in the area, Jacques de Reynier, was the first person to arrive at the place while the Irgun militias were still present: "Among the troops there were some very young people, almost adolescents, all in military clothing and helmets, men and women armed to the teeth with pistols, machine guns, grenades and also big knives, most of them still bloodied. A very beautiful young woman showed me her blood still dripping like a trophy [from her knife]...
I made my way between them and entered a house. The first room was dark with everything in disarray but nobody could be seen. In the next room I found, under the furniture and the busted mattresses, several corpses aIready cold.
The cleansing operation had been done first with machine guns, then with grenades and finally with the long knives, without any worries that it would be discovered. The same scene we found in the next room but as I was about to leave I heard what I thought was a sigh.
I removed the corpses until I touched a small foot that was still warm. She was a ten-year-old girl, badly injured by a grenade but still alive. I picked her up and one of the officers tried to block me at the door, I pushed him and left with my precious body ...
We checked the other houses and in all of them we find the same spooky scene. We only found two other people alive, two women, one of them an old woman huddled in the kitchen, she had been hiding there for hours ...
The village had four hundred inhabitants, some fifty managed to flee, three had survived, the rest had been thoroughly massacred, following the orders of their chiefs as they are admirably disciplined troops ... "
Jacques de Reynier gives the figure of 347 dead in the killing of Deir Yassin; other sources speak of 250. In any case, it is not about the number of victims – because in those months of 1948 there were similar massacres in many other villages of Palestine – but about the echo that the killing had, the panic movement it provoked, which made Deir Yassin one of the keys to the exodus of the Palestinian peasants.
[In my debates with Israelis and Zionits at Quora, I keep encountering the argument that the Arabs left of their own free will and that the Zionists are not responsible for this. They never mention these massacres, of course. Vince]
In fact it became one of the elements of the military strategy to achieve the "spontaneous" evacuation of the Arab population of rural Palestine. A pattern that was repeated with assiduity was to surround the villages and broadcast through loud speakers a messages to its inhabitants: Leave the village or you will get the Deir Yassin treatment.
In view of the above, it seems that when the Israelis say they have a right to this land, what they really mean is that the Arabs have no rights, not even the right to life, and that the Israelis have the right to kill them with impunity. [Ironically, one of the features of US Evangelicals is their campaign for life. Yet to them, this does not apply to Palestinians]
This 2020 election cycle again leaves the Palestinians with no hope for the future, regardless of who becomes president. More land will be seized bit by bit by illegal Israeli settlers until eventually all of the Palestinians wind up in refugee camps far from their homeland. The story of their plight will be censored just as it is now, with any reporter daring to speak the truth about them being branded an anti-Semite. Evangelicals will continue to lead the religion that in their hearts they have long forsaken. They will continue to proclaim the “right to life.”
So who’s to blame for the abuse of the Palestinians? Is if the Israelis?
I think not. After all, Israel looks to “Christian” America for moral guidance, and when it sees that the most pious Americans – men like Mike Pence and the Bible-toting Mike Pompeo, for example – approve wholeheartedly of everything the Israelis do, from the bombing of Iranian power plants to the shooting of Palestinian children during protests, it figures that all of these atrocities are approved by Christian Americans and the Jesus they worship. They’re right about the first part.
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
CONSIDERING CHINA’S SYSTEM HAS MADE CHINA GREAT AGAIN, SHOULDN’T THE USA ACCEPT THAT THEIR EXPERIMENT WITH DEMOCRACY HAS NOW FAILED AND ADOPT CHINA’S SYSTEM INSTEAD?
The question is technically appropriate, but it ignores the fact that the US can’t adopt the Chinese system, so whether it should or not is immaterial.
Why can’t it? Because to change the system would presuppose changing the American character, and therein lies the problem.
Many Americans, mostly on the right, blame the “Deep State” for all their ills, and their deep conviction that this “Deep State” is the bogeyman behind all their problems is why Trump was elected. Since it is true that a certain segment of the political class has tried to unseat President Trump, his sycophants believe that Trump rises completely above this Deep State and can overcome it, but in reality the Deep State, in the broadest sense, is nothing other than the US Establishment, which includes Trump and his cronies. After all, a salient characteristic of the Establishment is that it has bequeathed Americans two immutable givens, namely, US interference in foreign affairs (war, sanctions and regime change ops) and a debt-based (financialized) economy — as opposed to peace and harmony and a real economy that can pay its own bills without resorting to the Fed’s “printing press.” Trump has claimed to be an opponent of US meddling in foreign affairs but has so far not meaningfully asserted himself as opposing US meddling or a debt-based economy driven by the Federal Reserve’s habitual issuance of unbacked dollars – quite the opposite in fact. He has wholeheartedly embraced these 2 evils.
Let us not forget that shallow thinking is not just a function of the right wing. Democrats are equally moved by Establishment narratives designed to whip up warlike hysteria among the grassroots and by a belief in the almighty unbacked dollar as the driver of the US economy.
It is not the Deep State or Establishment that has foisted these two ills on America but rather the culture of the American people themselves, most (though not all) of whom we could very aptly call the Shallow State.
The Shallow State (on both sides of the aisle) is incredibly gullible in matters of national defence and economics. If any candidate for high national office suggests that the US is overspending on defence, he or she cannot get elected – despite the fact that the US spends several times more on arms than any other country and the Russian Federation, the purported “enemy” has never threatened to invade the West and has never been the aggressor (as explained here). And iIf a far off country elects a leader who makes statements opposing US “values” or supposedly abuses his people, the Shallow State (I do not mean all Americans, but the majority that accepts as Gospel the Establishment’s war narratives as recited in the msm) automatically and without further thought swallows the Establishment narrative that the country in question is an enemy that must be controlled with sanctions and threatened with bombs and bullets, and that all “free” nations must join the US in meting out this draconian punishment in the name of “humanity.” The issue for them is not subject to intellectual scrutiny or research. They allow the Deep State to impose the narrative including unproven assumptions based on anecdotal evidence or even on a total lack of evidence. For example, the Shallow State accepted without question that Bashar al-Assad is a bad actor who tortures his own people. The Shallow State did not ask for proof but accepted the word of Syrian opposition leaders who were clearly politically motivated and did not actively oppose terrorism. When the White Helmets, a group supposedly formed to rescue victims of the war but in reality closely allied to terrorists, claimed that Assad was attacking his people with toxic gas, the US Establishment, including Trump (he IS part of the Establishment) hawked this story to the media, the Trump camp, for the most part, immediately bought the story without further questions and accepted Trump’s senseless Tomahawk missile attack on Syrian forces, which were actually engaged in the fight against terrorism — though the Shallow State imagined the Syrian government troops to be just zombies blindly following a bad leader. (The truth behind the reports of “Assad chemical weapons” allegations is detailed here).
The strongest point in favour of war is always the desire to show God that the US is on His side, and that means serving the cult of “Christian” Zionism, which has almost completely taken over the US Evangelical church. Amazingly, they adhere firmly to this cult even though the words of Jesus do not support it and strongly militate against it (explanation here).
The Shallow State is hopelessly susceptible to all narratives that give it a chance to showcase its “patriotism.” But because it is shallow in terms of mentality and moral character, it never questions the leaders it has chosen, especially not Trump because it has been sold the narrative that he is opposed to the Deep State. Of course, if he were opposed to it in significant ways, then he would be opposed to the wars based on Deep State narratives. But the shallow people making up the Shallow State are incapable of seriously examining nuances and fine details, so they are eminently manipulable.
And therein lies the tragedy. The same applies to economic issues. The Shallow State, particularly its right wing, also accepts a certain number of assumptions about economics and government involvement in social issues. One of these assumptions is that any aspect of government that, in their minds, resembles socialism is dangerous. To the shallow minds of the Shallow State, the very mention of socialism conjures up images of emaciated prisoners in gulags. They are totally incapable of entertaining the possibility of a benevolent state in which health care is available to all, including the poor. To them, the notion of a state in which health care is a function of government is anathema. Such a state, they believe, would inevitably be totalitarian and inhumane, even though Canada, for example, is just such a state with health care available to the poor. They might complain a bit about the glaring gap between rich and poor, but as long as they have sufficient access to their calorie-rich food and a modest roof over their heads, they will automatically and unthinkingly praise capitalism, even though in reality, the predatory capitalism of Big Business and Big Banking have long displaced the benign system where an enterprising little guy with a few bucks and good credit can work his way to the top. These are the days of Corporate Culture, where the graduate of the right college who talks the right talk and walks the right walk can work his or her way up the corporate ladder. But woe unto the corporate candidate who questions the corporate machine and the government’s agenda du jour, and especially who questions the war and sanctions of the day or “Western values” regarding society and mores, as defended by social media moguls! He or she will be cast into outer darkness. Thus the denizens of the Shallow State unwittingly live in the very totalitarian state they fear when they suspect that billionaires might have to pay their fair share to the common kitty.
This lack of critical thinking and willingness to be led by their chosen hero, the Ivy League and the Establishment are why the US people could never accept a smoothly functioning and efficient economic system of the Chinese kind, wherein money must be earned with work, not conjured out of the air with the printing press.
Nothing of significance will change in the US until enough people feel the hunger.
It may not be far off.
Jesus’ parable was not about Samaritans vs Jews, although the two groups were at loggerheads over many things. It was, in the broadest sense, about all downtrodden peoples rejected irrationally by self-righteous religious people with a sense of superiority and entitlement but with hatred in their hearts.
Applied to today’s world, it is about Israel vs Palestine.
In the context of the question of eternal life, Jesus, in response to a question by a legal scholar, declared that the commandment to love God was a corollary to the commandment to love one’s neighbour and together, these constituted the greatest commandment.
When the scholar pressed Jesus to define “neighbour,” Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan who saved the life of a Jew who had been beaten to within an inch of his life and robbed. The Samaritan took the Jew to a hostel and paid for his keep and care, thus saving his life. The legal scholar admitted that this Samaritan was the essence of the neighbour in the Levitican sense.
When the scholar thus agreed with Jesus that the commandment to love one’s neighbour, as a corollary to the commandment to love God with all one’s heart, soul and might (Deuteronomy 6:5), is the greatest commandment of all. Jesus said “do this and you will live.” He was in fact saying that eternal life is accessible within Judaism – but a targeted Judaism stripped of all the legalistic rigamarole.
By choosing a Samaritan to be the hero of his parable, Jesus was hitting a sore point of the Jewish scholar since Samaritans had for nearly 7 centuries been hated by the Jews for their intermarriage with non-Jews and divergent religious views. Thus the reason for the hate was religious. But Jesus did not respect religion per se. His focus was on love, and hence more universal, unlike the Judaism of the Pharisees, which was essentially reserved for the sons of Abraham, and hence ethnocentric and not universally applicable.
Most Samaritans believed in Jehovah (Yahweh) like the Jews, just as the Muslims today worship the God of Abraham and evoke Old Testament history, though with a different slant, claiming a different son of Abraham, Ishmael, rather than Isaac, as their spiritual ancestor. But that’s religion, something rejected by Jesus. The word Allah is a cognate of the Hebrew el(o)ah, ie, God. Thus, like the Samaritans, they were believers in the God of Abraham but with different doctrines that didn’t amount to a hill of beans.
This religious distinction has no bearing on the Torah’s teaching of love found in Leviticus 19:18, which clearly commands: love your neighbour as yourself, the commandment discussed by Jesus and the legal scholar.
This commandment, in Jesus’ teaching, even transcends the Judaic religion. Indeed the Chinese philosopher Mozi (墨子, 5th-4th centuries BC) taught the theory of universal love, or love without distinction (jianai, 兼愛).
The Israeli policies of apartheid, land seizures, shooting of unarmed Palestinians on the flimsy pretext that anyone who opposes Israeli policies is a “terrorist” are incompatible with Christianity, Judaism and universally accepted principles of human conduct and relations and are the reason for the constant wars in the Middle East. Yet US Evangelicals support these inhumane practices without question. It is they, not just the “Deep State” or US officialdom, who are responsible for the death and destruction in the Middle East. Take away the Evangelical perversion of the Gospel and its impact on the US government – as clearly illustrated by the current administration and its 2 rigidly "Christian" Zionist officials Pompeo and Pence – and you have peace in that region. One nation understands this and the moral principles involved, and that is Russia, whose foreign policy reflects the teachings of the Old and New Testament regarding human relations.
There can be no such thing as “Christian” Zionism. In fact, there can be no such thing as Judaic Zionism.
Israeli scholars like Gideon Levy and Ilan Pappe would agree.
Vince Dhimos answered a question on Quora.
WHAT DOES IRAN HAVE THAT THE US DOES NOT HAVE?
A profitable energy business with oil and gas that can be extracted cheaply
Contrast Iran and its profitable hydrocarbons to the US, which has mainly shale oil and gas, requiring expensive fracking to extract. Despite the fuss made by politicians over America as the largest supplier of hydrocarbons in the world, the financial news is replete with stories of bankruptcies in American shale, indicating that the party may not last much longer:
As Oil Prices Drop And Money Dries Up, Is The U.S. Shale Boom Going Bust?
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
Oil and Gas Bankruptcies Grow as Investors Lose Appetite for Shale
Unlike the US, Iran does not steal anyone’s oil. Iran and its protégé Hezbollah have been helping Syria fight terrorists, eg, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and its rebrandings (Al-Nusra, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, etc) since the start of the invasion of Syria and Iraq by Western-backed terrorist proxies (an invasion cannot be called a "civil war"). During that time, there have been no reports of Iranians stealing Syrian oil. Contrast this with Trump’s crude admission that the US intends to “take the oil” from a country that the US invaded. There was a time when no politician would have dared to admit this shameful fact. But now all of a sudden, they can admit they have no sense of right and wrong. Because America is exceptional, because we said so.
Further, Iran is not known to concoct stories about the states that hate it, in contrast to the US, which has invented accusations against Iran, such as the absurdity that Iran supposedly aided ISIS shortly after that group formed. The fact that Iran has been helping Syria fight ISIS ever since the beginning of the invasion by foreign jihadists in Syria and Iraq, gives the lie to this pernicious narrative. In fact, it would be theologically impossible for Shiite-majority Iran, with its devout Shiite government, to join forces with Sunni Wahhabist ISIS and Al-Qaeda. (I am not trying to imply that Sunnism in itself is as intolerant and violent as the Wahhabist jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Some of the kindest and humblest Muslims are the Sunnis of Indonesia, for example, who have never been trained by the West to invade and bully other states).
Honesty is a trait that hails back to ancient Persia (former name for Iran). Herodotus wrote that the most disgraceful thing for Persians was telling a lie.
According to Wikipedia:
“Freedom of religion in Iran. ... Iran recognizes Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian religious minorities, among others. The continuous presence of the country's pre-Islamic, non-Muslim communities, such as Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians, had accustomed the population to the participation of non-Muslims in society.” On the other hand, it must be said that there are reports of abuse of Zoroastrians by Iranian Muslims.
Remember, however, that in today’s US, an executive order has banned the granting of visas to Muslims. That is religious intolerance on the official level, something that was once alien to the American spirit.
Again, the trait of tolerance goes back millennia. Persians practiced tolerance to the religions of the peoples they conquered.
According to Wikipedia Christianity in Iran - Wikipedia, there are 600 Christian churches and 500,000 to a million Christians in Iran, the country that is demonized by the US for alleged human rights abuses.
Contrast this to the US’ closest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, which is almost never criticised by US politicians and is visited by most presidents, who treat the Saudi royals like ... royalty. In that country, no Christian or other worship is allowed. Even Christians who worship in homes can be arrested. You probably didn’t know that, but you did know that some US-associated churches are banned in China because they are seen to subvert the government. The Western press is highly selective. You are only allowed to know the official story.
Years of Hebrew friendly history
While the Babylonians took Hebrews captive, it was Persian king Cyrus who conquered Babylonia and set the Judeans free. And it was Cyrus’ son Darius who helped the Jews build their destroyed temple. Temple, The Second Decree to Rebuild the - Amazing Bible Timeline with World History
American Jews commemorate Purim, the liberation of the Jews in Persia and their salvation from execution. Some have claimed that the situation with Israel today, supposedly threatened by Iran (because a few angry leaders issued threats), is reminiscent of this. But in the Purim story, it is not only an evil Persian who threatened the Jews, it was also the righteous Persians who saved them from this evil man and then punished him severely. So it is not about Persians/Iranians vs Jews, it is about good vs evil, tolerance vs intolerance.
As for tolerance, did you know that Jewish Purim is celebrated today in Iran?
Celebrating Purim in Iran
Yes, there are a few Jews there living peacefully. But none in Saudi Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Saudi_Arabia. Unlike the current US administration, which conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-antisemitism-20180915-story.html), Iran recognizes the distinction between Jewishness and Zionism. As for US pal Saudi Arabia, there is a whole article in Wikipedia on anti-Semitism in Saudi Arabia. Antisemitism in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia
And did you know that Iran took in refugees of the Holocaust?
So what is the problem with Israel? The trouble is that, unlike the vast majority of Americans, the Iranians sympathize with the Palestinians who were displaced in and before 1948 and are still being fired upon by the IDF, which has killed hundreds of unarmed Arabs in the occupied territories. Iranians have feelings for the downtrodden that Westerners are taught to despise.
The history of the village of Deir Yassin is well known to Iranians and other Middle Eastern Muslims but it is virtually taboo to talk about it in the West. (I have had factual commentaries on this issue, and on "Christian" Zionism removed by various social media platforms I have used).
While some Jewish groups deny that a massacre occurred, there are honest Israeli journalists and historians who dare to tell it as it happened. Haaretz has reported on the massacre in grim detail. Testimonies from the censored Deir Yassin massacre: 'They piled bodies and burned them'
Iran is not anti-Jewish, but it opposes the atrocities described in the linked article and the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It does not agree with US politicians who insist anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. After all, what if Germany suddenly declared that anti-Nazism is anti-German? Wouldn’t that be a message to the world that Germans are inherently Nazis? Why would anyone send such a message? But that is exactly the message we are receiving from Zionists, both Christian and other.
Until the time this tragic time in the history of Palestine can be discussed openly, there will be no reconciliation between America and this surprisingly tolerant and open country that our politicians want us all to hate.
Please remember that there is nothing wrong with Jews or Iranians. Intelligent open minded Jews and Iranians can get along just fine. It is the American politicians (on both the left and the right), and even religious leaders, who have sown enmity between the two groups by pampering one and demonizing the other.
Westerners have got to learn to think for themselves. That is how we can all be great again.
“CHRISTIAN” ZIONISM TAKES THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF WORLD WAR BUT HAS NO BASIS IN SCRIPTURE
Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR THE WEST TO GO AGAINST THE US/TRUMP IN THE LATEST ESCALATION WITH IRAN?
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
The problem is, it is not clear whether enough Americans are unhappy about the killing of Soleimani or not. It’s all in the numbers. And of course, we then also face the issue of whether the Democrats are much different from Trump when it comes to war and security. If not, there is little point in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, so to speak. All Democrat politicians said the same thing as Trump about Soleimani, calling him a terrorist, Their only criticism about Trump is that he used the wrong method to kill Soleimani, ie, they think Trump should have coordinated this murder with Iraq or the “international community.” And we all know that they do not consider Russia, China, Syria and their allies as part of that community. Perhaps most Americans agree? All US politicians on both sides of the aisle know that the average American has been brainwashed for years to believe that Iran is an evil nation led by evil people. Are there really enough American voters who do not accept that myth? If not, what’s the point of rearranging the deck chairs? The Titanic is going down.
Not one US politician would dare to state plainly that Soleimani was not a terrorist, that he was a talented strategist who fought against the US in the Iraq War to free the Iran ally Iraq from the real terrorist, ie, the US Establishment. (I showed here that the US-led West sponsored ISIS). He also fought ISIS. How does that make him a terrorist? How does Iran fighting ISIS in Syria make that country a terrorist supporter there? But that is the belief hardwired in American culture – this means that it can and will be used by politicians to garner votes, even if that means taking the world to the brink of a war. The fact is, the only motive the US Establishment (both parties) has to consider Iran a terrorist supporter is to please Israel and Saudi Arabia. But stating that can destroy a politician’s career or get even an ordinary citizen in hot water, for example, on social media, which simply do not allow any debate on core issues touching on deeply held beliefs of Evangelicals (http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/international-relations/christian-zionism-has-taken-the-world-to-the-brink-of-war-but-has-no-basis-in-scripture). The main cultural trigger when supporting war is a religion that falsely claims to be based on the Bible, the most widely exploited, and abused, cultural trigger in America, and one that has transformed US christianity from Christ-centered to Israel-entered.
Thus, all politicians will use the cultural trigger of Iran as a demon, and therein lies the problem. As long as they continue the demonization of Iran, and as long as the myth of Iran as a demon remains part of grassroots US culture, there will be no real change.
I wrote a paragraph at Quora on these cultural triggers:
Vince Dhimos's answer to Is Iran really that much of a threat to the United States of America?
Westerners live, grow up and, for the most part, die in a kind of labyrinth similar to the matrix in the movie by that name. The labyrinth is designed and tended by the US war/banking Establishment and the genius of it is that it does not just herd the people like sheep, but makes them want to do the Establishment’s bidding because they are gently indoctrinated through media sleight of hand, using selected cultural linguistic triggers, and through powerful undercurrents of their own culture, particularly “Christian” Zionism, to think they want the things the Establishment wants. Every word out of every politician’s mouth, and every word written or spoken by corporate “journalists” reinforces this induced desire for the very things the citizen would ordinarily abhor if it were not for this combination of propaganda and cultural triggers. They routinely wake up from their induced trance after the damage is done, as in the case of the Iraq War and the revelation that there were no WMDs. Remember that US "conservatives" supported GW largely because he claimed to be forn again.
Their entrapment in this culturally induced labyrinth is labelled “freedom.” It has led to a ballooning debt and endless wars.
Now, if you are interested in how US culture, particularly “conservative” culture, thinks about Iran, you can go to Breitbart and search for Soleimani. I opened this site: Pentagon: U.S. Airstrike Killed Iranian Commander Qassem Soleiman and in the forum under that article, found that there were almost 10,000 posts from Breitbart readers. This was a kind of anthropological study for me, showing me the mind-set we are up against. I read a few dozen reader posts and found not a single one that saw the Iranians and Soleimani as a people/person deserving of life. They all agreed that he had to die and that the Iranian government must be destroyed. They all agreed that Obama was a traitor for signing on to the Iran deal. Obama as a traitor and Iran as a demon are some of the cultural triggers embedded in American – particularly “conservative”— culture but also among Democrats. It would appear that most Americans harbour this trigger in their minds. These triggers are not open to debate. They are like religious beliefs. If you question them, you are a bad American and a traitor and are worth no more than Iran or Soleimani or the Khamenei.
There is no point in arguing with most Americans over these hardwired notions, which are generally regarded as “facts.”
In other words, it is not only the Establishment (which some erroneously call the Deep State and assume it is only a group arrayed against Trump) that forces its policies on the people. It is the people themselves that unwittingly accept disastrous policies because of the attitudes and myths hardwired into their culture.
It is hard to face it, but the only thing that can change America is external force.
The way Russia changed America by sending two Tu-160 nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela, forcing Trump to relinquish his plan to invade that country.
Something equally powerful will have to back down the US from its potentially disastrous plans to invade Iraq. Otherwise, the world is truly headed for WW III — driven by a man who promised to end the endless wars.
So will electing a Democrat president save us? Interestingly, it may have been Trump’s respect for Putin that led him to relinquish is plans to invade Venezuela. But the Democrats have no respect for Putin. What would a Democratic regime have done in that case?
War is lurking no matter who is president. At bottom, the American people and their culture, are driving it. The politicians are just giving them what they want – or think they want.
The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?
The following is our translation of an article from RIS Novosti.
"We built feudalism," or mourning the American dream
An exorbitant concentration of wealth, the erosion of the "intellectual estate" and a crushed, hate-filled middle class: this is the same situation that led France, and beyond it, Europe to the revolutionary era at the end of the 18th century. Now this is happening in America. So says Joel Kotkin, one of the most prominent thinkers of the "Trump" sector of US policy.
Next year, his book "The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class," will be released. And now Kotkin has published an article, which is standard in such cases, and in essence, gives a concise review of this book. The following is a discussion of this article.
I first need to warn the reader about two things. First: the author writes most of all about America, but the situation he describes applies both to Great Britain and to the Western group of states as a whole.
And secondly: his obsession with America is somewhat romantic: he mourns the era when the United States did not have “very poor,” unlike still-feudal Europe (this is the beginning of the 19th century), and other beautiful times and eras, until the 70s of the last century. When the American dream, today called “social mobility” - that is, the opportunity to emerge from the grassroots and become part of the elite - still somehow looked realistic. This romanticism of the author can lead us to think, for example, of the descendants of the Indians, exterminated for the sake of that very dream, but we will not be distracted by particulars.
The concentration of wealth - this is not a discovery by Kotkin, although if you want fresh and powerful statistics on this topic, then his book contains a considerable amount. For example: less than 100 billionaires now own 50 percent of the world's assets, although just five years ago, 400 people owned the same half of the world, and so on.
But there are unexpected and interesting thoughts about the modern "first estate,” billionaires. They are the feudal lords, but in pre-revolutionary France they were called only the second estate, while the church was deemed the first. Century after century, the church in Catholic Europe played the role of master of knowledge, meanings, and just literacy. The revolution happened not only when the hereditary feudal lords became too rich, but when a riots, a collapse and other turbulent processes in what was then the "humanitarian sphere."
And here Kotkin declares: today's "first estate" is, first of all, several monopolistic companies in the field of high information technologies. “High-tech feudalism” and an “oligarchy” were created; the dictates of several giants who monopolized markets and - interestingly – they created their own “corporate culture”, that is, an ideology: employees should be without children, paid very modestly, and have no social mobility for them. Moreover, seven of the ten largest companies in the world are from this sector, and here the only competitors of the “new feudal lords” are the Chinese with their achievements.
In general, the “new priestly class” includes teachers, people from the entertainment industry, consultants, lawyers, doctors, scientists, the media, and non-governmental foundations and charitable organizations in the hands of billionaires. According to some estimates, these constitute 15 percent of the American workforce. And for one thing, this estate has become hereditary and withdrawn; secondly, we are talking about graduates of a maximum of 20 elite universities (and at the very top we are talking about only four). Thirdly, this group is no longer independent owners, often consisting of someone on a salary.
The largest American companies have promised that they will work to create an "economy that serves all Americans." That is, they have actually recognized that so far this economy has not served - and probably still does not serve - everyone. Amazing, right?
Further, a very definite ideology has developed for society. It is estimated, for example, that in 2018, only seven percent of journalists claimed to vote Republican. The same thing has happened with university professors: gradually, these positions were seized by people of only left, or “liberal,” beliefs.
The product of their collective activity, we might add, is endless campaigns of terror and hatred aimed at destroying the old culture, values and lifestyles, old society, the very stuff of the "American dream" - a society of independent people. Further, the “third estate” is not only crushed by these “new priests,” it is getting poorer every year and is also decreasing physically: this can be seen, for example, by the reduced number of home owners.
Here I must say that Joel Kotkin has a very singular vision of a feudal society. It lasted for several centuries because, in fact, it was quite vigorous and viable, and included a lot of social mobility. True, this required constant warfare, turning armor-bearers into knights and landowners. Not to mention that the privileges of the “second” military class were in permanent military times explainable. And what this American philosopher is talking about is in fact the crisis of the feudal era, the decomposition of a society in which warriors for the most part ceased to be warriors, but only accumulated and squandered wealth.
It was a long crisis in which, among other things, the once united Catholic Church degraded and split the Western Christian world, and as a result, the best ideas and values began to be developed outside its framework ... But one way or another, what is happening today with Western civilization does not seem like classical feudalism, but rather the collapse of the latter.
From his analysis, Joel Kotkin draws these conclusions: the “third estate” must gather strength and rebel against the petrified oligarchic system and the enraged “first estate.” Such a rebellion will help a lot if American values and traditions that were deliberately destroyed by the "knowledge class" is returned to the young generation. We have already said that the author is a great idealist. But, on the other hand, the rebellion is already underway, and Kotkin himself is part of it.
The following is our translation of an article from topcor.ru.
May 15, 2019
The “American Dream” stirs the soul of many Russians. For some reason, they believe that there, in a foreign land, fortune will surely smile on them, and life will immediately become prosperous, both materially and psychologically.
That was what Toliatti-born Elizaveta Rumyantseva thought, who moved to the United States 23 years ago. For Elizaveta, who holds a diploma in history teaching, it was clear in the middle of the “dashing nineties” that here in Russia, her future is either as a beggarly state employee or endless drudgery for the owner of a market or store. As a young woman back in 1996, Elizaveta made the decision to leave for the United States, since an opportunity was available – she had relatives in America who had emigrated immediately after perestroika.
We talked with Elizaveta in a cozy cafe on a Moscow street. Yes, this was not idle talk - Elizaveta has already been back in Russia for 4 years. Today she remembers with a simultaneous smirk and shudder the nineteen years she spent in the United States. The Russian woman did not like it in America, and for good reason.
“The most important thing is people. We also have families with black sheep, but the majority of Russians are still good, sincere, and most importantly, real people. America is the realm of phoniness. There they may smile at you, but in reality they don’t perceive as a person,” says Elizaveta.
Just after arriving in the USA, the Russian woman immediately faced a number of problems. She was unpleasantly struck by housing prices - an ordinary American, unlesshis parents had real estate, could just barely afford to buy an apartment in a major city such as New York or San Francisco. They live in rented housing, paying for rent the lion's share of their monthly income.
Housing prices are a direct cause of a large number of homeless people. And it's not only drunks who wind up on the street, as in Russia, but also honest hard workers who simply don’t have enough money to rent a house.
The second problem is crime. There are more people in prison in the US than even in Stalin’s USSR. But after all, only a small percentage of the criminals are in jail, and the big ones are at large, where they feels quite at ease, despite the harsh customs of the American police. In some areas of American cities it is generally impossible to enter without an escort of armed guards. But many of us have heard about crime and high prices. There are much more interesting features of life in the States.
“Few people know that rat poison, ie, sodium fluoride, is added to drinking water in the US,” says Elizaveta.
Speaking of rats, there are lots of them. This i because of the dirt on the American streets, the huge number of fast food outlets with scraps and other garbage. Homeless people also add to the problem.
According to our interlocutor, Russia is treated in the United States with a great deal of wariness. Many Americans are intimidated by the media and live in constant fear of nuclear war, or a Russian attack.
“Americans are afraid of us, and their stereotypes are built on stupid Hollywood films and very superficial television programs,” says Elizaveta.
After many years of torment in the States, Elizaveta realized she could not accept American reality. Some succeed in this, some stays in the States forever, but are deeply unhappy, but our interviewee made a firm decision to return to Russia.
“Now I am at home, and to my young acquaintances who are dreaming of leaving for the West, I recommend thinking three times before making a final decision whether you want to live in filth, in constant fear, surrounded by criminals and homeless people,” says the Russian woman.
Author: Ilya Polonsky
It's been 5 years since Russia annexed Crimea, do Crimeans feel Russian now? Will Ukraine never get back its territory?
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief and Political Analyst (2015-present)
Sevastopol. Video made in July 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T6upSfGCxE
At 2:20 the crowd shouts "Rosssiya, Rossiya, Rossiya". At 2:30, Putin speaks in front of the huge crowd. He is not protected and feels no fear. He obviously knows that he runs no risk, because almost everyone in Sevastopol feels Russian and everyone loves him and sees him as a hero and saviour of the people. It was only a few months after the annexation. The film shows on-screen inscriptions that are quotations from the Ukrainian press claiming that Crimeans were forced to cheer Russia "under machine gun fire" and "in the wake of armoured tanks." The West will do everything in its power to convince its subjects that Russia is a dictatorship, but the objective truth is evident in this video and in others made in Crimea after annexation.
The biggest lie is that Russia is an aggressive nation. It was not Russia, but a European aggressor, that invaded and conquered Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, a large part of Germany, Poland and Spain from 1805 to 1812.
It was not Russia that invaded and occupied France during the Second World War. It was a European aggressor.
It was not the Russian Federation that invaded Serbia in 1998-1999 and killed 13,500 Europeans - almost all civilians - with aerial bombs. This mass murder was committed by NATO.
The truth is that Russia did not invade Crimea. Russian military installations and troops were already there, thanks to the close ties that joined Ukraine and Russia before the violent and illegal coup of 2014 that overthrew a legitimate democratically elected government in violation of Ukrainian and international law. It was the United States who sent Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and NGOs such as USAID (a CIA creation), an Open Society Foundation of George Soros, and it was European nations like Germany that, through the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, undermined Ukraine by promoting the illegal coup d'état with their false promise to allow Ukraine to become a member of the EU.
After this illegal coup, Russia decided to hold a referendum in Crimea and the results showed that 95.5% of voters voted in favour of Russia's accession. International observers from various countries were present.
According to the website https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/international-observers-find-crimean-referendum-strongly-and-voluntarily-supported-by-the-crimean-people-250658201.html:
"A group of international observers from Israel, Spain, Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, Latvia, Moldova and Serbia who have been invited by the Central Electoral Commission of Autonomous Republic of Crimea visited the largest cities of Crimea - Simferopol, Yalta, Evpatoria, Alushta, Saki, as well as many villages in the countryside.
"All observers unanimously noted that the referendum was held in strict compliance with international standards."
It is obvious that the Russians did not invade Crimea or seize the territory. They simply complied with the will of the Crimean people, who had been Russian since 1783 when the Ottoman Empire was defeated there by Catherine The Great. It would be more correct to say that Crimea acceded to the Russian Federation rather than that Russia annexed Crimea. That is what makes this question so remarkable. How could a people with over 2 centuries of history as a Russian speaking people immersed in a Russian culture not feel Russian?
Finally, the question "Do Crimeans feel Russian now?" reveals the impact of Western propaganda, influenced by Washington, on the entire West, who believe, despite the information we have on Crimeans, that Crimeans did not feel Russian before annexation. The truth is that Crimeans have always felt Russian and never identified as Ukrainians. The famous short story writer and playwright Anton Chekhov spent the last years of his life in Yalta, where he wrote the short story "Дама с собачкой" ("The Woman with the Little Dog"), which takes place in Yalta in the late 1890s If you read this tale, you can easily see that the people of Yalta speak Russian and see themselves as Russians and not as Ukrainians.
I visited Yalta in the early 1970s and was able to speak Russian with everyone I met. They did not even have a foreign accent - Ukrainian. I was with a group of foreign students of the Russian language that travelled from Moscow by bus to a seaside resort, and for the entire weekend, did not know I was in Ukraine. I thought I was in Russia!
I was recently exchanging views with an Israeli over the word anti-Semitism and I contended that the word anti-Semitism is a misnomer because, based on the root word “Semitism,” it would have to apply to all Semites, not just Jews. But my opponent said that this is a very old word dating back to 1879 when it was coined in Germany by Wilhelm Marr, who started the tradition of Jew hating in that country. My interlocutor maintained that any word that is used in a certain sense for that long could no longer be changed (even thought it was coined by a Nazi?), since it was well entrenched in everyone’s mind, that books and articles had been written containing the word “anti-Semitism” in the currently accepted sense and so on.
He was right in a way because the word is certainly well established in its meaning of “anti-Jewish.” However, there are a lot of words in the English language that have several meanings because people realized the need to update the vocabulary and have added more-precise meanings to them. The meaning of “anti-Jewish” could co-exist alongside the more precise meaning of “antagonism toward all Semites, “ which would be true to the etymology of the word.
If anti-Semitism means specifically anti-Jewish sentiment, based on the contention that a misnomer should never be rectified because it is widely accepted and no longer a misnomer, then what about the American Indians? Why do we now say Native American and not Indian? For centuries, we had a name, ie, American Indian, that was perfectly unambiguous due to its common and widespread usage in the meaning that everyone clearly understood, but after all that time, we changed it to avoid offending the people to whom the name referred. It was a ridiculously politically correct change but semantics is politics in the US.
If we pursue this line of logic to its end, then we should not be using the word anti-Semitic to refer only to anti-Jewish sentiment because we thereby create confusion, suggesting that there is no such thing as anti-Arab sentiment when in fact I daresay this phenomenon is more prominent in the Israel-dominated Gaza strip and Jerusalem than anywhere else in the world, and if the usage of the word were true to its root “Semitism,” then the Israeli government would be one of the most anti-Semitic (in the unambiguous sense) in the world, although the US has also practiced the most grievous form of anti-Semitism of all, having slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Arabs with aerial bombs in the last 2 decades (though some put the number in the millions considering the effects of sanctions). Yet we are told that this grievous harm to Arabs is not a form of anti-Semitism, even though the Arabs – like the Jews – are properly called Semites, which no one denies. The refusal to open the meaning of “anti-Semitism” to include the rest of the Semites is purely political, and it is an affront to all Arabs, who also have a perfectly legitimate claim to victimhood as a result of senseless wars.
The fact is, whenever language is influenced for political reasons, we wind up with a winner and a loser, with one of two groups being harmed or slighted and the other benefitting at its expense.
To deny that abuse of Arabs is anti-Semitic is to deny that Arabs are Semites. But if they are not Semites, then what are they?
Further, if a person is anti-Arab and ant-Jewish at the same time, what is he if not anti-Semite?
Clearly, the reason Israelis and Zionists insist that we adhere to an artificial and rigid rule that effectively denies the Semitic character of Arabs is purely political and is a denial of the Arabs’ right to be properly denoted as Semites, with the Israelis and Zionists arrogating the stem “Semitic” exclusively to themselves, just as they arrogate part of the Golan Heights to themselves when in fact the Golan Heights are 100% Syrian.
Of course, anyone who dares to point out this abuse of the Arabs by denial of their identity as Semites is cynically called anti-Semitic, which is the height of absurdity. A defender of Arab rights is, by dint of mathematics, less anti-Semitic (in the sense clearly denoted by the root of the word) than a defender of Israeli apartheid. Yet by malicious manipulation of language, this person who uses language in a scrupulously correct manner is, absurdly, condemned as anti-Semitic.
So are the Jews to blame for this misappropriation of language?
No, not really. The biggest offenders are the US Evangelicals who blindly subscribe to the ideology of Zionism and blindly defend everything the Israeli government decrees, and support the Likud Party and all the heinous rules imposed on America, for example, by AIPAC (including, of course, the proposed clearly unconstitutional anti-BDS law forbidding participation in any boycott of products made illegally in Palestine), believing steadfastly that each Israeli politician is led by the spirit of the Almighty and never could do anything wrong. Their belief is motivated by the fear that if they should fail to properly adore Israel, they would be the recipients of the curse enshrined in Genesis, where God is speaking to Abram, but Evangelicals generally believe He means Israel:
Genesis 12:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
The blind acceptance of modern secular Israel as the reborn Israel prophesied in Ezekiel 37 has shaped foreign policy in Washington and has made America a slave to Israel and to all the pronouncements of Zionists for decades. Indirectly, this blindness of the American people has led to eternal wars and continues to do so today.
Yet Ezekiel 37 is not foretelling the Israel of today. Verse 24 of that chapter says that the resurrected Israel will have David as its king and will be obedient to God’s decrees.
A poll shows that 65% of Israelis describe themselves as “irreligious.”
US Evangelicals will only kick to habit of worshipping Israel first and Jesus last when the US economy has fallen so far that everyone can see that the people who impose Israel worship on the entire US government and even foist it on the rest of the world are not being blessed as foretold in Genesis for a nation that no longer exists.
And that fall is just around the corner.