“Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:1,2). Many handle the word of God deceitfully.
I teach women to be modest as God commands. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array” (1 Timothy 2:9). Right here, women, we are commanded to dress in modest apparel with shamefacedness, which means to dress in a way that doesn’t draw attention to oneself. Why does God command this specifically of women? He created men. He knows they are visual and attracted to the female body. We are to do nothing to cause our brothers to stumble.
Many will take this teaching and turn it into something evil. They will say I am promoting a “rape culture” even though I never said anything about rape. They blame men on lusting, and tell me it’s solely their fault if they lust after an immodest women. Women have no responsibility, they claim. THIS is handling the word of God deceitfully.
Here’s a good example of Kellie doing this. Me: “Women, dress modestly if you want men to see you as a woman rather than an object.” Kellie: “Why don’t we just raise men better to never see a woman as an object? Seems like y’all wanna make everything that’s sexual into the woman’s responsibility. Not cool.” James to Kellie: “Not fighting nature will give you more understanding and peace.”
I teach women to be obedient to their husbands (Titus 2:5) and submit to them, yes, in everything (Ephesians 5:22-24) as God commands. Many will say that this “submission doctrine” has led to the abuse of many women, therefore, it should not be taught. THIS is handling the word of God deceitfully. The teaching of submission does NOT cause the abuse of women. Cruel men will abuse their wives whether or not they are submissive. Godly women should not stop teaching submission because other women accuse them of spreading abuse.
I teach women to be “keepers at home” (Titus 2:5). Many will say this offends women in the workforce, therefore, I should not teach it. It “shames” working women, they tell me. THIS is handling the word of God deceitfully. Instead of women being shamed from hearing God’s Word, they should be convicted. They should know that being at home with their children is the best place for them to be, and do all they can to go home, NOT try to stop older women from teaching this.
I teach women to be “learn in silence with all subjection” (2 Timothy 2:11) in the churches. Many rebel against this and twist Scripture to their own destruction. Women being pastors and in leadership churches are common these days. It’s actually hard to find churches that have all male leadership. Women will find all these women in Scripture that were in leadership positions in the churches in order to negate this teaching. Guess what? There are none! No, not one. THIS is handling the word of God deceitfully.
They’ll say it was cultural. No, we’re given two reasons why women are not to teach men nor be in authority over them, and it goes back to Creation. First, Adam was created first. This is God’s authority structure. Second, Eve was deceived. Women are more easily deceived, as anyone with eyes can see. All of these *great* female Bible teachers/preachers eventually are teaching men and teaching things that aren’t biblical. God is very specific on what He wants women teaching other women, namely, biblical womanhood. That’s it! Learn God’s Word from the male elders in your churches, from your husband (Ephesians 5:26 and 1 Corinthians 14:35), and from your own study at home.
I teach women to not deprive their husbands sexually (1 Corinthians 7:5). Many want to find all of the exceptions and accuse me of promoting marital rape. THIS is handling the word of God deceitfully. Instead of encouraging women to seek to obey God’s Word in everything, they want to find all of the exceptions and slander me in order to negate God’s will for them.
Avoid the false teachers, women, and there are MANY! You must know God’s Word. Let it dwell deeply within you. Measure everything you learn by the Word of God. Almost every book in the New Testament warns of false teachers. This tells us there are many.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3,4
The Humiliation of China: Western drug lords, Opium Wars and Xi Jinping strategy to avoid it happening again
1 week ago
Herland Report: The total humiliation of China:As tensions are escalating between China and the West, allegations are that China is committing “genocide and crimes against humanity” in its Xinjiang province, which China denies, the trade war continues to new levels.
Western nations have reportedly imposed the harshest sanctions for decades, in an effort to help the Uighur Muslim tribes in northwest China.
On the backdrop of the ongoing trade war, it is well worth reading up on the West’s hundred years of humiliation of China (read it below), which is basically what the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping is saying will not happen again.
Time will show whether he will succeed, but the Chinese seem to have carefully forged a long term strategy to avoid being subjected to another hundred years of humiliation, and seem bent on not accepting accept a repeat of the Opium wars. This was when Western drug lords produced a system that led to the total humiliation and subjugation of China.
With the ongoing geopolitical shift to the East, the United States sadly seems to be in its own years of humiliation, drug abuse, division and economic crisis, the Opium China story is worth revisiting on several levels.
On the backdrop of Xi Jinping’s stance, let us go through how the “hundred years of humiliation of China” happened historically. Read the remarkable and horrifying story below, writes historian of comparative religions, author and founder of The Herland Report.
(Feature photo: The 98th Regiment of Foot at the attack on Chin-Kiang-Foo, 21 July 1842. Source: Anne S.K. Brown Military Collection)Humiliation of China: During the Opium wars, Western drug lords produced a system that led to the total humiliation and subjugation of China. Here, two poor Chinese opium smokers. Gouache painting on rice-paper. Credit: Wellcome Library, London.
The Jardine-Matheson Corporation: The most successful Opium traders in China
The Humiliation of China: In 1803, an East Indiaman trade ship came sailing into the Chinese Canton port. Among its passengers were William Jardine, a surgeon hailing from a poor Scottish family. Jardine had taken up the job as doctor on British trading ships headed for China, serving under the British East India Company (EIC), but soon found himself participating directly in trading various commodities.
In 1817, after years of experience, he left the EIC to join a private enterprise that specialized in one particular commodity – opium poppies. This was an extremely valuable commodity Jardine and his counterparts saw a major potential in China for.
There was only one problem: China had banned the drug. This was in context of other trade difficulties in China at the time.
Since the 1600s, China was ruled by the Qing dynasty. The dynasty had a policy echoing that of the Tokugawa Japanese – total lockdown of the country and ban on international trade. In the late 18th century, Western powers were determined to open up the country and eventually managed to persuade the Emperor to allow trade partnerships with the West under the condition that all trade was to be made via Canton (modern day Guangzhou). This became known as the “Canton System”, a method for the Chinese to accurately monitor the trade by tying it through just one location.
It did not take long before Canton was filled with British, Portuguese, French, Dutch and U.S traders, all seeking to reap fortunes off the enormous economic potential of China. China had a total population of around 400 million at the time, and was one of the most exciting growth markets, despite its uncooperative regulatory system.
Particularly lucrative was Chinese tea leaves and porcelain. However, the British had a problem: the Chinese wanted to be paid in silver, as opposed to any barter exchange. This could risk draining the Empire of silver.
Meanwhile, the British East India Company discovered a valuable new commodity: opium. Having annexed Calcutta, an opium-rich region, they realized the great commercial value of the drug for both medicine and recreational use.
The Portuguese had tried to sell opium into China before via Macao, but the detrimental social effects of the drug were immediately noticed and the Chinese soon banned the buying and selling of opium on Chinese soil.
It was here William Jardine and the other merchants exploited a legal loophole. Instead of docking in Canton, they anchored their opium-loaded trade ships outside the port, and then contracted Chinese smugglers to load the contraband and bring it onshore to distribute it. These Chinese partners were known as the Hong traders.
They paid in silver, which was then used by the same British merchants to buy tea, musk, porcelain and other goods to sell in Europe. Needless to say, this was an extremely lucrative business.
William Jardine had deep knowledge of the entire supply chain, having observed it for years as a doctor. In the new private enterprise, he quickly excelled as one of the top traders. In 1824, the chief executive of the enterprise went home to Britain after the company fell into disarray, and handed control over to Jardine and another crafty Scotsman called James Matheson.
Jardine and Matheson now inherited a range of ships and assets. They founded their own business, called Jardine-Matheson Corporation, as a vehicle for their trade.
This became an iconic duo. Together, they grew a sophisticated network of opium procurers in India, cunning sailors and a vast pool of Hong traders, or smugglers.
It did not take long before William Jardine and James Matheson became the de facto drug lords – the most successful opium traders in all of China.
Jardine, who now was enormously wealthy, cultivated an aura of authority around him. Very few were allowed to see him, and only a selected few had the privilege of exchanging words with him. He soon became known in China as the great Tai Pan – meaning “Big Shot” or “Chief Executive”. Others nicknamed him The Iron Headed Old Rat.Left: William Jardine. Right: James Matheson. Jardine and Matheson now inherited a range of ships and assets. They founded their own business, called Jardine-Matheson Corporation, as a vehicle for their trade.
The Humiliation of China: The opium drug spread at lightening speed across China, and soon had almost the entire country addicted. Opium dens were opened along the entire coast, and millions were now filling up its rooms, desperate to satisfy their uncontrolled addiction. Even within the government bureaucracy there were opium addicts.
This numbed the entire country and caused catastrophic economic consequences: agricultural productivity collapsed as farmers stayed inside to enjoy their “high”, or sleep. Shops began to close, except the opium dens, of course.
The addiction was especially prevalent along the Chinese coastline – the most economically concentrated region. On top of this, the country was being drained of silver, as the metal flooded out to the Hong traders to pay for the imports. In 1839, the Qing Emperor’s very own son died of overdose.The Humiliation of China: The great Qing-China High Commissioner Lin Zexu. Lin first sent a desperate plea to Queen Victoria, asking her to explain to why her citizens had returned friendly trade with such cynical malpractice in the hunt for profit. The letter “got lost” in the mail and never reached the Queen.
China’s High Commissioner, Lin Zexu took action to eliminate the appalling Opium trade
The Humiliation of China: Witnessing this development with deep disgust, China’s High Commissioner, Lin Zexu, decided to act before this epidemic could cripple the entire country.
Chinese Commissioner Lin first sent a desperate plea to Queen Victoria, asking her to explain to why her citizens had returned friendly trade with such cynical malpractice in the hunt for profit. He wrote:
“…How can foreigners return injury for the benefit they have received by sending this poison to harm their benefactors? They may not intend to harm others on purpose, but the fact remains that they are so obsessed with material gain that they have no concern whatever for the harm they can cause to others. Have they no conscience? I have heard that you strictly prohibit opium in your own country, indicating unmistakably that you know how harmful opium is. You do not wish opium to harm your own country, but you choose to bring that harm to other countries such as China. Why?
The products that originate from China are all useful items. They are good for food and other purposes and are easy to sell. Has China produced one item that is harmful to foreign countries?
For instance, tea and rhubarb are so important to foreigners’ livelihood that they have to consume them every day. Were China to concern herself only with her own advantage without showing any regard for other people’s welfare, how could foreigners continue to live?
As months accumulate and years pass by, the poison they have produced increases in its wicked intensity, and its repugnant odour reaches as high as the sky. Heaven is furious with anger, and all the gods are moaning with pain! It is hereby suggested that you destroy and plow under all of these opium plants and grow food crops instead, while issuing an order to punish severely anyone who dares to plant opium poppies again.
A murderer of one person is subject to the death sentence; just imagine how many people opium has killed! This is the rationale behind the new law which says that any foreigner who brings opium to China will be sentenced to death by hanging or beheading. Our purpose is to eliminate this poison once and for all and to the benefit of all mankind.”The Humiliation of China: Commissioner Lin and the Destruction of the Opium in 1839. Lin’s forces arrested thousands of Chinese opium dealers and confiscating and destroying the drug wherever he could find it. He arrested 1700 opium traffickers, confiscated 70 000 opium pipes, boarded opium-laden ships to confiscate the cargo, and ultimately forced merchants to hand in 2.6 million pounds of opium. Source: MIT, 2020
However, his letter received no response – sources indicate it was “lost in transit”, and never arrived to the Queen. Thus, Lin Zexu began his war on drugs. “If the traffic in opium were not stopped a few decades from now we shall not only be without soldiers to resist the enemy, but also in want of silver to provide an army,” he had explained.
Lin’s forces arrested thousands of Chinese opium dealers and confiscating and destroying the drug wherever he could find it. He arrested 1700 opium traffickers, confiscated 70 000 opium pipes, boarded opium-laden ships to confiscate the cargo, and ultimately forced merchants to hand in 2.6 million pounds of opium.
Having campaigned across the country, he moved on the port of Canton. Lin’s army besieged the foreign quarter of the port and cut off their water and food supply, demanding that Western traders gave up all their opium stocks. Lin’s men also beat on drums all night to deprive the Westerners of sleep.
Lin Zexu cooperated with Sir Charles Elliot who was appalled by the drug industry in China
The Humiliation of China: In the midst of all this, Lin received cooperation from the British Trade Superintendent, Sir Charles Elliot. Sir Elliot had been governor in numerous countries across the world, but was deeply repulsed by what he witnessed in China.The Humiliation of China: Lin cooperated with the British Trade Superintendent, Sir Charles Elliot (pictured above). Sir Elliot had been governor in numerous countries across the world, but was deeply repulsed by the drug industry that he witnessed in China.
While he disliked Lin’s aggressive approach, he also considered the trade as dishonourable, and feared it could lead to open war with China.
Risking his own career and personal safety, Sir Elliot halted incoming British opium ships and confiscated the drug, then handed it over to Commissioner Lin, who immediately destroyed it all.
It did not take long before Elliot had an angry mob of Hong traders at his doorstep, demanding compensation for their incalculable financial loss.
To calm them, Elliot promised the smugglers that they, and British merchants, would be compensated by the British government.
In effect, Commissioner Lin and Sir Elliot jointly outlawed all opium trade in China. Lin proceeded to make the trade of opium punishable by death.
It seemed that the drug empire of Jardine and Matheson was at risk of collapse – but the two had spotted a weakness in Elliot’s plan.
They knew that Elliot had no authority to compel the British state to compensate the Hong smugglers – and they were right. The British Parliament flatly dismissed Elliot’s request to compensate the Hong smugglers. Defending his actions, Elliot wrote the following to the British Foreign Secretary:
“No man entertains a deeper detestation of the disgrace and sin of this forced traffic on the coast of China. I have steadily discountenanced it by all the lawful means in my power, and at the total sacrifice of my private comfort in the society in which I have lived for some years past.”
With the inability of Elliot to do anything about the matter, the Hong traders now turned to the great Tai Pan – Jardine – for a solution. It was now very clear what Jardine and Matheson needed: they needed a war. The Tai Pan had flirted with the idea of war before, and he had finally found its right moment.
The two drug lords appeared for the British Parliament, with both men entering politics to lobby the government to send armed forces to China and coerce Lin to reverse his actions.
It was China that had to compensate the Hong smugglers and British merchants, he argued. After all, it was Lin who had destroyed the commercial merchandise – not the British.
The first Opium War, the treaty of Nanking and Humiliation of China
The Humiliation of China: In early Autumn 1839, news of further escalation between Lin and British ships reached London. 60 British ships had been left starved outside Kowloon, leading to a skirmish between the traders and Chinese soldiers.
Knowing China better than anyone, Jardine now presented detailed plans and logistical calculations of how the British military could easily crush the Chinese and force them to submission. By the promise of an easy war, British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston gave his vote – in late Autumn of 1839, the British Empire declared war on China.
They sent the trained military of the East India Company and the Imperial Navy to bombard and raid along the Chinese coast. Chinese soldiers were untrained and poorly equipped, using matchlock guns, bows and swords against the British steam-powered machine. Some Chinese soldiers were said to be weakened by their opium addiction – the very drug they fought against.
With the help of Jardine’s intel, the British swiftly defeated the Chinese. By 1841, Qing China was at the mercy of the Empire.
This became known as the First Opium War and resulted in the Treaty of Nanking. It laid out a set of demands, most of which came from the Tai Pan and his colleagues.
Full compensation of any commercial losses by British merchants following Lin’s actions, to be paid in silver. This includes full payment of war reparations for the cost incurred on the British Empire. Both these sums totaled 21 million dollars, to be paid within 3 years and incurred interest upon any delays.
Ending the Canton System and opening four new Chinese ports to international merchants…
…where British merchants could trade with whomever they liked, at pre-determined tariffs.
Ceding an island, at British preference, to the British Crown.
The Humiliation of China: The signing and sealing of the Treaty of Nanking. Source: Painted by Captain John Platt 1856, (Brown University)
The Humiliation of China: For the last point, Tai Pan Jardine had already picked out the island he wanted. He and Matheson had smuggled opium on the island before and were well familiar with it – it was Hong Kong.
And so, Hong Kong became the new seat of the great Tai Pan who now continued to rule his drug empire unopposed.
This was a deeply humiliating treaty. Lin Zexu was held responsible for the disgrace of such a defeat, and was exiled to Xinjiang.
Sir Elliot became the first official administrator of Hong Kong, but was removed from his position shortly after, accused of disobedience and excessive leniency.
In response to the accusation that he had “cared too much for the Chinese”, he wrote the following to the British Foreign Secretary: “But I submit that it has been caring more for lasting British honour and substantial British interests, to protect friendly and helpful people, and to return the confidence of the great trading population of the Southern Provinces, with which it is our chief purpose to cultivate more intimate, social and commercial relations.”The Humiliation of China: Chinese addicted to opium in the 18th Century. Source: 何輝生中國人服食鴉片圖
The Tai Pan would go on to invest heavily in warehouses and accommodation for employees on Hong Kong, and the population of the tiny island doubled already within a year – however, by then, Jardine had already been struck by cancer. He died in 1843, leaving all his riches behind.
His partner in crime, Matheson, moved home the following year, buying the Isle of Lewis and building his own castle there. Those who lived in the Isle were evicted and moved en-masse to Canada. Matheson later became the Governor of the Bank of England. He left the Jardine-Matheson Corp empire to his nephews to manage.
In the following decades, Chinese opium imports would grow exponentially (from 1,400 tons in 1839 to 6,500 tons in 1880). Consequently, opium addiction became an epidemic in China, causing huge social unrest, infighting, civil wars and economic decline – ultimately leading to the weakening of the Qing government.The Humiliation of China: Opium imports into China 1650-1880. Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
The Treaty of Nanking in 1841 marks the beginning of The Century of Humiliation – a dark epoch in Chinese history where the “Celestrial Kingdom” was torn a part by foreign, imperialist powers and plagued by ethnic clashes, religious unrest and rebellions, often linked to the opium trade.
For instance, there was the Second Opium War in the 1850s, which culminated with the full legalisation of opium in China in 1858. Followingly, there was the Taiping Rebellion, caused partially by a disdain for the opium calamity.
The Taiping rebels seized almost 1/3 of China before they were crushed by government forces, supported by British and French troops. Weak and exposed, China was plagued by foreign interventions and civil wars for decades.
It was not until the rise of Mao Zedong that China finally rid itself of opium. Mao shut China from the global economy, put addicts in forced rehabilitation and executed opium dealers, often without trial. After Mao, the Chinese statesman Deng Xiaoping took effective control. Under his leadership, China once again opened its borders for international trade – but now with a determination to never again be the weak party.
In 1997, the last official foreign foothold in China ended, as Hong Kong was ceded back to China. However, the region is still reaping the consequences of what started almost two centuries ago when Jardine, the Tai Pan, came sailing into the port of Canton.
Herland Report:Egoism creates spiritual poverty: A most desperate search for happiness and inner peace now seem to characterize the West, as we muddle through crisis after crisis, many pondering the meaning of life.
Somehow, we seem to have collectively lost the healthy outlook on life that characterize those who are in a mental state of balance.
We now solely pursue the pleasures of the atheist way of life: materialism, wealth and the pursuit of worldly goods – the only values among the godless, writes historian and author, Hanne Nabintu Herland in her regular WND column,the largest Conservative network in America.
The “cancel culture” craze now eats up any remnant of love between the races, as the Western mind slips further away from grasping the peace and mental bliss millions used to find in prayer and traditional religion.
The days of Billy Graham are over, and America struggles to survive – sex and drugs hailed as the road to a better life.
Yet, lasting happiness is and has always been deeply connected to how you treat others. If we stop caring for one another, life becomes hell on earth. Then the working class are abandoned, the poor are uncared for, nobody tends to the fatherless and the widow. Egoism becomes the only rule applied.
The quest is to get rich, regardless of who is trampled to the ground. Solidarity vanishes in such a society, as the fallen Rome saw before us. Even the drug industry turns to feed its very own children with its poisonous death.
Christianity – the now so scorned faith – fights the implementation of selfishness as acceptable, maybe like no other religion. It fights to educate the mind to engage in empathy, in love for the frail.
Egoism creates spiritual poverty: Where there is genuine love, there tends to be a higher level of justice. Benevolent leaders in history have been those who seek to perform justice, to better the conditions for their own people. Such leaders have sought to deliver the most possible justice for all, not only for a small group of wealthy men.
When love for humankind is removed from the equation, and selfish gains accepted as the way forward – with little or no regard for the “little man” or those suffering – hell on earth begins.
The Greek Orthodox monk and elder St. Paisios once told the story of what hell looks like. He said it was to be likened with a table full of food and people sitting around it with long spoons in their hands.
They were thirsty and very hungry, but could not get the spoons into their mouths, as they watched the table of plenty.
Heaven, on the other hand, was filled with wonderful dishes of the most wonderful food, but everyone there had long spoons, too.
They were giving food to each other, one feeding the other, all flourishing from the gift of giving to others what each wished for would be given to him.
St. Paisios then asserted how heaven on earth is for those who love and give. Hell on earth is for those who selfishly care about only themselves. You reap what you sow, others reap what they sow.
The story symbolizes the very essence of humanity when respect for human life and empathy is the ideal. Focusing on selfish gain hinders man from entering a better world.
Yet, money and wealth is not the problem; man’s egoism is. Marxism believes it is a class struggle, but it is not. Evil is in every man’s heart, among the rich as well as the poor. The examples from the Holy Scriptures of David, Daniel, Abraham, Esther, Sarah, Joseph tell the stories of rich, influential politicians, kings and business owners whose examples we should follow.
Egoism creates spiritual poverty: But they were not examples due to their wealth and worldly status. These were leaders for us to follow because of their humility and love for God, their willingness to do what he asked of them.
The aim is always to love. It is to spend your life looking beyond the borders of your own realm of interest, and do kindness to others. Be honest, help. Search out those in need. The aim is to perfect your virtues as a person of honesty and integrity who has an abundance of peace to give.
As Jürgen Habermas puts it, precisely the traditional, Western religious philosophy and ethics seem to be able to provide motivation for the individual to show more empathy and solidarity. It contains the very medicine against selfishness and greed. It is an urgently needed shift as we desperately need to gain moral strength from our historic origins.
With the White House continually provoking tensions against Russia and China, the doyen of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, dramatically warned Washington last week to either agree to a new international system or continue pushing tensions that are leading to a situation similar to the eve of World War One.
Henry Kissinger, EPA
In a Chatham House webinar with former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt last Thursday, 97-year-old Kissinger called on the U.S. to create a balance with existing global forces, adding “if you imagine that the world commits itself to an endless competition based on the dominance of whoever is superior at the moment, then a breakdown of the order is inevitable. And the consequences of a breakdown would be catastrophic.”
The veteran diplomat urged the U.S. to understand that not every issue has “final solutions” and warned “if we don’t get to an understanding with China on that point, then we will be in a pre-World War One-type situation in which there are perennial conflicts that get solved on an immediate basis but one of them gets out of control at some point.”
However, the idea that the U.S. should stop imposing its will on everyone else will not be easily accepted in Washington.
This is attested by the sharp rhetoric and personal insults that U.S. President Joe Bidencontinually levels against his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
High-ranking Chinese official Yang Jiechi told U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on March 18 in Alaska that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.”
Then, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi boldly said days later on March 22 during their meeting in Beijing that they “jointly safeguard multilateralism, maintain the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law, while firmly opposing unilateral sanctions as well as interference in other countries’ internal affairs.”
Kissinger’s career is washed in blood when we remember his backing of Pakistan during Bangladesh’s War of Independence despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people and mass rape; orchestrated a military coup in Chile to remove democratically elected Allende in favor of the Pinochet dictatorship; tacitly supported Indonesia’s mass killing of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese; and, blessed Turkey’s invasion of northern Cyprus that led to 200,000 Greek refugees without a right of return – among many other things.
However, his most recent statement about the U.S. and the international system is actually a mature proposal that would be beneficial for world peace if the Biden administration accepts his advice that the global order is changing.
It is unlikely that Washington is ready to unilaterally end its hard and soft power aggression as it falsely believes it can maintain a unipolar order.
It is always difficult for Great Powers to accept that the world has changed, especially when it is to their detriment.
The behavior of the Biden administration, which deliberately uses threatening and inappropriate rhetoric, demonstrates that it will not rationally accept a multipolar world system, especially since Russophobia and Sinophobia are on the rise.
Personal insults against Putin and Xi are an expression of American impotence, especially when we consider that the U.S. historically did not engage in this kind of rhetoric when it was at the zenith of its power.
The U.S. is no longer the world’s sole superpower and its rivals are no longer accepting such aggression, which is exactly why the Chinese delegation that went to Alaska last month clearly stated that it does not accept any language of force.
An additional problem for the U.S. is whether its allies will strain their relations with China and Russia, and whether they will accept being pushed into conflicts with them.
There are indications that the most important European countries will resist U.S. demands.
This is evidenced by the Nord Stream 2 issue where American attempts to prevent its construction are being met with resistance from important European Union countries despite the endless complaints from minnows like Lithuania and Poland.
Robert Gates, former director of the CIA and U.S. Secretary of Defense, admitted in a recent interview with the Washington Post that sanctions against Russia do not any good for the U.S. In The National Interest, Robert Kaplan describes Russia as a “problem from hell” because it cannot be subdued.
Kaplan offered reasons why it is necessary for Russia to “move away from its one-sided alliance with China” and find balance with the U.S.
Washington’s misguided policy of aggression to maintain a unipolar world order worked in the favor of China and Russia, especially in accelerating their cooperation. The West can no longer suppress China’s economic power or Russia’s military power.
Military strategists in the West are aware that the Russo-Sino cooperation cannot be compensated by anything.
In the end, Washington will have to resort to a strategy resembling Kissinger’s suggestion of finding equilibrium, whilst also accepting the multipolar reality that has been established.
Israeli elections are a movable feast. The fourth round is over, and they already anticipate the fifth, perhaps in August. The Israelis just can’t form a stable government. They’ve got the Italian merry-go-round virus of unstable governments. Italians get a new government at an average of one every thirteen months. The Israeli mutation of the Italian virus has its own peculiarity. The Italians can form a minority government; in Israel, if there is no majority for the government, new elections are automatically called for. Now thirteen parties have entered the parliament, but it will not be easy to make a government coalition based on a parliamentary majority.
Why can’t they form a government? They do not differ much. With few exceptions, Israeli politicians and their parties are of one mold: they are Right or far-Right; strongly nationalist, and neoliberal –somewhere between the John Birch Society and the KKK. The problem is that the party leaders hate each other, and they don’t want to accept Palestinians even as junior partners in their government. And without Palestinians, none can achieve a parliamentary majority.
The bulk of Palestinians have no Israeli citizenship, like the American Indians had no US citizenship. Still, almost two million Palestinians are citizens of Israel, and are entitled to vote; they make up 20 per cent of all Israeli citizens. Yet they are kept out of the decision-making. In the previous elections, the Palestinian parties joined together and won 15 seats in the Parliament. All pretenders for the office of prime minister refused to accept them as partners, and resigned hereby setting off the new tour of elections. In the most recent elections, the Palestinian vote was divided between (1) Communists and Arab Nationalists who would love to join a leftist government and (2) a conservative Muslim party perfectly willing to join Netanyahu government together with other Jewish religious parties. Even so, right-wing Jews refuse to join with right-wing Arabs, and left-wing Jews refuse to accept left-wing Arabs. The Jews don’t want to sit with goyim around the same table.
They have other self-imposed limitations, too. Some don’t want to sit with religious Jews. Some are of the “Never Netanyahu” persuasion. Once upon a time in Israel there were left-wing and right-wing parties with their own ideologies; now they are divided by one question, namely whether Benjamin Netanyahu, nicknamed Bibi, will be the prime minister again.
Bibi has ruled Israel since 1996 intermittently. During the breaks, he held various top posts. Israeli liberals hate him, just like their American brethren hate Trump. They curse the stupid deplorables who stubbornly continue to vote for Bibi. The well-off and educated Israelis despise Bibi. The Israeli liberals considered the removal of Trump as a cue for them: if Trump was overthrown, now is the time to overthrow Bibi, they thought. But popular vote is not decisive enough.
The Bibi Hate Complaint is an Israeli twin of Trump Derangement Syndrome. At a Passover Seder table, good Israelis called on God to punish Bibi like He punished the Pharaoh, and re-tweeted their curses. They want to get rid of Bibi by fair means (elections) or foul (legal tricks). The judiciary system is in the hands of the liberals, and has been weaponised against Bibi. He certainly is a criminal and deserves to be sentenced for life for his bombing of Gaza and Syria, but Israeli judges are unlikely to consider those actions a crime.
Israel’s judicial system is the most rotten part of the Jewish state. They have sanctioned the use of torture, ethnic cleansing, confiscation of Palestinian lands and homes, the expulsion of Palestinians, and have approved the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon. There was no war crime or crime against humanity committed in Israel that did not receive the approval and blessing of the judiciary. Even for straightforward mass murder, the Israeli court had sentenced the murderer to a fine of ten cents! The courts have declared all the state lands of Palestine to be the property of the Jewish people. They have also allowed the construction of Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands, and the indefinite imprisonment for Palestinian parliamentarians. The judges are as unfair and dishonest as in the US.
The actual charges being brought against Netanyahu are as hollow as those against Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Bibi is accused of accepting gifts – cigars and pink champagne – from Arnon Milchan, the Hollywood producer (L.A. Confidential), tycoon and spy for Israel. The prosecutor’s office has never been able to prove Bibi did something in return for this unheard-of generosity that he wouldn’t have done unless bribed with bubbly. Another case accused Bibi of trying to make the mass media less hostile to him. If this is a crime, all politicians are criminals!
They want to send Bibi to jail, and any reason will do. Bibi understands this, and stubbornly clings to power. It is one thing to peacefully step down to a well-deserved retirement, and it is another thing to go to prison for several years. Thus, Bibi fights for his freedom, and the only way to do that is to form a government. He passed the first obstacle: the president empowered him to try and gather a coalition. That wasn’t an easy thing: newspapers (as hostile to him as the New York Times is hostile to Trump) tried to persuade the president to give the mandate to somebody else. Now he is almost within reach of forming a new government, but this tantalising almost may still be his undoing. He has to convince the religious Jew, Naphtali Bennett, and religious-conservative Muslim, Mansour Abbas, to join him.
However, there is no real choice for the voters; the potential candidates for the prime minister’s office aren’t all that different. The once all-powerful Israeli Left alliance made up of Social Democrats, immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire, strong nationalists like the interregnum Polish socialists of Marshal Pilsudski— has collapsed. One part of them switched to LGBT support, the other – to the fight against the grammatical gender of possessive pronouns, the third – to the fight against religion and religious Jews. The ‘support of workers and peasants’ has completely disappeared from their agenda, for it’s migrant workers from Thailand who do the peasant work in the Jewish state, while the industrial workers are Ukrainian and Romanian illegal immigrants under the supervision of a Russian guard.
Israel is strongly pro-American, and is likely to remain so. However, Bibi is “friends” with President Putin; he often visits Russia; always ready to ask for a favour; he never does anything in return for Russia, but at least he is not overtly hostile. He never fulfils his promises to Russia. However, the alternative potential prime ministers of Israel are even less sympathetic to Russia.
An interesting new development is the rise of Israeli anti-Semitism. Israeli Socialist Zionists were secular but not really hostile to the Jewish faith and faithful. In a recent piece, Miko Peled has stressed the hostility of early Zionists to contemporary non-Zionist Jews. Though true, that was long time ago. This attitude didn’t survive World War Two. Anti-Jewish Zionism (Jewish self-hate, in Peled’s terms) was built on the rise of German National Socialism; if Hitler were to win the war, perhaps this kind of brutal Nietzschean Zionism would become dominant, as the ideological predecessors of Netanyahu, Yair Stern and Yitzhak Shamir had planned. After Germany’s defeat, the whole discourse of Soil and Blood, of Work as opposed to financial speculations, of devotion to Tradition, had been defeated as well. Zionism had to lower its goals, change its vocabulary, and end its hostility to ordinary Jews, warts and all.
After the Jewish state was established, relations between Orthodox (non-Zionist) Jews and Zionist Israelis became, if not fraternal, then quite tolerant, as between, say, ordinary Americans and Mennonites. Ben Gurion promised and granted them the Status Quo arrangement. It worked, more or less, for over 70 years.
Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party were secular, perhaps mildly anti-clerical, for years; but pugnacious anti-clericalism in Israel had been started by Avigdor Lieberman, the head of the ‘Russian’ party and a sworn enemy of Netanyahu. Moreover, he began as anti-clerical, but very soon he glided into anti-Semitic tropes. Probably he had thought he would tap a whole new reservoir of votes, of right-wing anti-religious Israelis, and undermine Netanyahu who was always friendly to religious Jews. However, his ruse failed when it came to votes. Yair Lapid took the votes of Israelis who felt strongly about religious laws. But Lieberman’s reckless anti-Jewish talk did have an impact.
The Covid crisis has made anti-Semitism fashionable in Israel. The Orthodox Jews rejected the accepted Coronavirus narrative. They kept their synagogues and schools open; they didn’t observe social distancing and the mask regime. All hell broke loose; even polite people spoke of ‘disease-carrying rodents with long whiskers’, of ‘ugly idle Jews’ that didn’t care about public health and ignored the wise rules of the Corona Tsar de jour. It has become so bad, that a leader of Shas, a religious party of Oriental Jews, has lodged a bill against anti-Semitism, something Israel never before contemplated.
Whilst the Covid crisis impacted all mankind, Israel was a leader in dealing with it; at first by severe lockdowns, and then by massive vaccination. Israeli security services were involved all the way. The Mossad foreign intelligence, with its resources and connections, provided the country with sampling sticks and masks; Israeli intelligence officers were stealing the items ordered by other states and intercepting foreign supplies. An application created by the Israeli security forces tracked all movements and contacts; electronic handcuffs, cynically called “freedom bracelets”, similar to those used for house arrest, have been developed and are being used for those who come from abroad. Israel was the first to enter lockdown, and first to make a deal with Pfizer. Bibi has turned the country with its highly computerised medical care records into an experimental laboratory. Pfizer receives detailed information from Israel on how people with different medical conditions respond to the vaccine. For this, Pfizer supplied Israel with a large number of vaccinations, so that most Israeli adults have already been vaccinated, and now the next step is to vaccinate children and babies. Israel has 35 million doses of vaccine, more than enough for its population. That was the time for the two to fell out. Israelis stopped paying, Pfizer stopped deliver ing. Israel had a good reason: Netanyahu promised to pay Pfizer well over the going rate. Such promises are rarely fulfilled and Jews aren’t famous for sticking to such promises. And anyway Israel has a lot of ampules.
Bibi gave royally generous gifts of the vaccine to the countries and leaders he considered useful, but not to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. He even blocked delivery of Russian vaccine to Gaza. The Orthodox Jews also vaccinated, though much less than the secular population. Anyway, since January the Orthodox Jews have far fewer sick people than any other group. They are still persecuted and ‘when an Orthodox Jew gets on a bus everyone looks at him like he’s a leper’, reported Reuters. This schism will last long, probably as long as Covid-related measures, or even longer.
Despite having a very high vaccination rate, Israel is still in the grips of Corona hysterics. The country has been quarantined for almost a year, with short breaks. The airports have been closed down. Vaccination is practically mandatory. The psychological pressure on the unvaccinated is so strong that very few people can withstand it. Without a Green Pass, the digital proof of vaccination, one can’t visit a restaurant or enter a supermarket. The courts have allowed the firing of employees who refuse vaccination. The vaccinated also get sick with covid and they do spread infection. A new strain has emerged that affects adolescents and young people; masks are required everywhere. As the Green Pass is lodged in smartphones, for the first time ever the government has full, real-time control over the population.
Why did Israel become almost the first country to take Covid so seriously? It is not widely known that Israel is one of the leading countries in the field of bacteriological warfare. The Institute for Biological Research in Ness Ziona develops deadly bacteria and viruses; there were cases when their effectiveness was tested on Palestinians. We do not know how or where the Covid originated; but the first country affected by Covid (after the outbreak in Wuhan, in China) was Iran, where members of the government fell ill at the same time, with a particularly tough and deadly strain.
Let’s remember that Iran is Israel’s main enemy; Bibi is constantly at war with Iran on all fronts. Dozens of Iranian tankers were blown up by the Israeli saboteurs of Flotilla 13. While the Wall Street Journalreported that a few Iranian tankers had been sabotaged by Israeli frogmen, Israelis were upset and said they sabotaged “dozens”, not just a few. This week they sabotaged the mother ship of the Iranian Navy in the Red Sea. Israeli terrorists kill Iranian scientists and military personnel, Israeli planes bomb pro-Iranian militia bases in Syria. The “choice” of Iran as the first Covid victim makes one wonder whether Israel is, if not behind the creation of Covid, then behind its spread? Ron Unz considered it possible that Covid was a US bioweapon deployed against China. He wrote:
Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran’s top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
Indeed it is possible that Israeli biowarriors knew of the virus, knew of its employment in Iran and China (or even deployed it), and were aware of its danger. Would they, Israelis or Americans, use a bioweapon that could drift to their own countries? Ron Unz deals (ibid) with this question at length. He suggests that they could just be hare-brained and vicious enough. Israelis were short-sighted enough to attack an Iranian tanker in such a place and time that the whole Mediterranean shore of Israel was polluted by spilled oil. “Israel Sabotaged Iranian Ship, Caused Massive Oil Spill on Own Shores” reported Israeli-American investigative journalist Richard Silverstein – “The Israeli mine, which was supposed to cause minor damage, actually ripped a hole so big that much of the contents of the ship’s hold leaked into the Mediterranean. This is what caused the Israeli environmental disaster: Israel itself.” If they could be silly enough for that, they are silly enough for anything.
This week, in an extensive, rare interview, Russian top security man Nikolai Patrushev accused the US of developing bioweapons in Fort Detrick, Maryland and in many labs bordering Russia and China. The same day, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at the press briefing: “According to openly available reports, the US has set up 16 bio-labs in Ukraine alone. Why does it need to build so many labs all over the world? What activities has the US military been conducting in these labs and the base at Fort Detrick? Why does the US stand alone in opposing the establishment of a verification mechanism under the Biological Weapons Convention? Could it be that there are places within these labs and base where the US dare not allow in international verification?” Before the recent ‘Putin killer’ remark, the Russians and Chinese never said anything that offensive to Americans. It is not impossible that Netanyahu had first-hand knowledge of the Covid danger, and for this reason he acted fast as he did.
Will Israel ever tone down its aggression? Yes, if and when the Jews will grant the right to vote and other rights to the Palestinians living under Jewish rule. Will this happen in our lifetime? How long will the world put up with apartheid? It’s hard to predict. Meanwhile, we should not worry too much about who will rule Israel – it’ll either be Bibi Netanyahu or one of his second-rate clones.
We’re at a turning point in our history. America has practically adopted an official state ideology: Critical Race Theory(CRT), which holds that white privilegeand racism are embedded in all institutions and cause inequality. Thus, practically unlimited government intervention is justified to remove racism. In practical terms, this means attacking whites, the group that created and sustains the United States.
One of President Joe Biden’s first acts was to eliminate the patriotic education project of the “1776 Commission.” Instead, teachers will promote Critical Race Theory and the “1619 Project” in public schools, and government bureaucrats will get official doses of CRT. SomeRepublicansaretrying to keep Critical Race Theory out of schools, but I doubt they will succeed. Leftists are more aggressive than conservatives and are willing to hurt political opponents.
In wealthy Loudoun County, people who want Critical Race Theory in schools used antifa tactics to doxx and smear parents who oppose it. The Federalist reported on this, so the lefties have pulled in their horns a bit, but can conservatives endure? Are ordinary parents, most of whom don’t even like to think of themselves as “white,” willing to fight, when it means facing hostile media and maybe even physical danger? It’s far easier to move away, even though escape gets harder all the time.
President Biden has also reinstateddiversity trainings for federal employees. All federal agencies must do an internal review to advance “equity.” This means equal outcomes, not equal opportunity, and will require discrimination against whites and Asians.
The military is not exempt. The Pentagon is doing its own internal review to “identify and combat white supremacy and other far-right extremism.” Black Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warned Congress that “enemies [may] lie within our own ranks.” The military requires diversity training, and Ibram Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist is on the Navy’s Professional Reading Program. The Pentagon even attacked cable news host Tucker Carlson after he mocked diversity efforts. A memo on the “Extremism and Insider Threat in the DoD” published by Politicoshows that the brass think fairly common symbols such as the “OK” sign, the Punisher logo (used by legendary sniper Chris Kyle), and the “Come and Take It” slogan are potential “symbols of extremism.”
Governments at different levels openly discriminate against whites in ways that go beyond affirmative action. Joe Biden saidthat the federal government would prioritize reopening small businesses owned by blacks, Hispanics, Asians, “Native Americans,” and women — in other words, everyone except white men. Evanston, Illinois is paying reparations to blacks. Oakland will have a basic income program that excludes whites.
Reasonasks whether this is even legal. That misses the point. How did this even happen? And what white person (and what lawyer) will sue to stop these programs and face media hostility and possible danger from antifa?
The foundation is already built for denying white advocates and even ordinary conservatives legal protection. One journalist suggests it is somewhat scandalous for public defenders to represent people who rioted at the Capitol on January 6. USA Todayran a story complaining that defendants were actually trying to raise money to hire lawyers. The federal government is working with the Anti-Defamation League (and probably other groups) to use the vast national security apparatus against “far right” groups, a label that could apply to millions of Americans.
Major corporations are joining the “antiracist” effort. Amazon donated $10 million to groups supporting “justice and equity,” highlighting its efforts with a web page with a huge black-nationalist flag. The largest asset-management company in the world is BlackRock; Chairman Larry Fink’s “Letter to CEOs” told companies to address “racial justice” and disclose “your long-term plans to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Goldman Sachs, the largest underwriter of Initial Public Offerings, refuses to take an American company public unless there is a woman or non-white on its board (foreign companies can do as they please). Health care company Cigna not only teaches employees about Critical Race Theory but even hasCommunist Angela Davis on its reading list.
“Woke Capital” is anti-white and preaches Critical Race Theory. This doesn’t just mean you might lose your social media account. A bank can cut you off from basic financial services.
Some conservatives might call this “fascism,” but I’m more interested in whothose in power are targeting than how they are doing it. We shouldn’t retreat to stale conservative talking points such as “antifa are the real fascists.” Our rulers are punishing whites who defend their race, not because they are a government of “liberal fascists,” “radical socialists,” or Chinese stooges. Nations sometimes pursue different ends through the same means. The Soviet Union, the United States, and the Third Reich all controlled their economies in the 1930s and during World War II. All used propaganda. All limited individual liberties and regional autonomy in the name of a collective good. Of course, these systems weren’t the same, and the ends they pursued were different. That is what matters.
Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism badly damaged the American Right because it convinced countless conservatives that using state power, pursuing the common good, or encouraging collective efforts are degrees of “fascism.” Many race realists and white advocates roll their eyes at conservatives who make claims that liberals are really “fascists” when they pursue goals like mass vaccination, but conservatives and libertarians aren’t stupid. They believe fascism is about means and methods, not goals.
Ends are more important than means. Elites in different countries use similar techniques to govern their populations, but that doesn’t mean they are the same. For example, the United States uses a Social Credit System like China’s. China’s is run mostly through the state. America’s is run through the private sector. However, the problem with America’s Social Credit System isn’t just that it’s tyrannical. It hurts the country. China’s system boosts national pride, health, and productivity. Ours undermines these values.
There are other tactics used by past regimes that are like those we face today. After the National Socialists took power, the Reichstag fire was a justification for the Enabling Act that centralized power. Joseph Goebbels and other officials forced public and private into line with National Socialism. This was called Gleichschaltung, or “co-ordination.”
Again, the aims our rulers pursue are different. Dinesh D’Souza suggested in The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, that we are somehow governed by the ideological descendants of Nazis. Modern progressives’ obsessionwith seeing and fighting imaginary “Nazis” everywhere makes this a ridiculous claim. Calling the other side “the real Nazis” never works anyway.
Nonetheless, Mr. D’Souza is correct when he suggests that some of the tactics today’s progressives use are the same. “Progressives in America are using their dominance — actually their virtual monopoly — in the fields of academia, Hollywood, and the media to enforce their own Gleichschaltung,” he wrote in 2017. Now that we’ve seen practically every major institution in America reoriented to fighting “racism” as a central goal, it’s hard to disagree.
Here’s another example from German history. In East Germany, the Stasi (the Communist secret police) used a tactic called Zersetzung, or “decomposition.” Historian Hubertus Knabe said the Stasi tried to “destroy secretly the self-confidence of people, for example by damaging their reputation, by organizing failures in their work, and by destroying their personal relationships.” The goal was not to kill or imprison dissidents, but to make their lives worse and undermine their potential to oppose the regime.
The Stasi flag
However, it wasn’t just the Stasi’s power to spy on people that made it effective. There was also a vast network of informants that, according to some historians, may have included one out of every seven East Germans.
I wonder if journalists identify more with the Stasi agents than the dissidents in The Lives of Others. Perhaps they see their spiritual brothers in the Communist secret police as the heroes. The damning information about life in East Germany that the dissidents are trying to release is the socialist utopia’s high suicide rate. One can’t help but think about the soaring “deaths of despair” among whites in our democracy.
Mine is not a message of hopelessness. There are many ways to build the world you want from the bottom up. Strong people are banding together to work as groups to help our people physically, economically, and spiritually.
I also don’t want to preach victimization. We should not be like leftists and blame all our failings on “the System” or some other boogeyman. We must acknowledge our weaknesses, become stronger to overcome them, and work together.
But don’t ignore oppression. This system and those who run it hurt our people. Our struggle is for liberation. All the major institutions oppose us. Others in the past have faced the same thing. Whatever their motives, what our rulers are doing hurts our race.
As Sam Francis said, “At a time when the self-declared enemies of the white race define themselves in racial terms, only our own definition of ourselves in those terms can meet their challenge.” Even those who may not be our “self-declared” enemies act as if they were. We can’t deny what we face. There is no way out but through.