–The oldest war that cannot end.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the gap.

I’m sailing into dangerous waters, here, so please bear with me.

In religion, there are no facts; only stories. These are mine.


The earliest religions were multitheistic, with gods ruling over every conceivable thing — sun gods, moon gods, rain gods, ocean gods, mountain gods – an endless procession of gods, often at odds with one another.

Judaism was one of the first monotheisic religions, with 3,000 year old roots. Its one God has no physical presence, but rather is an all encompassing, eternal, all-knowing, omnipresent power.

Jews (originally “Children of Israel”) have a personal relationship with their god. All prayers are directed to, and all responses come from, this one god. There are no intermediaries.

Rabbis are not holy figures. They merely are teachers. No one prays to a rabbi.

This god gave the Jews their 10 commandments, the first three of which are:

1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt . . .
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto the a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above . . . (nor) bow down to them, nor serve them . . .
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . .

Over time, people became uneasy with the concept of direct personal communication with God, perhaps believing they were unworthy of such communication, or perhaps needing a human presence to which to pray.

Jesus of Nazareth was a rabbi, born, lived and died a Jew, as were his disciples, including Peter, the first pope. Some Jews (Jewish Christians) accepted Jesus as their messiah, and so became the beginnings of Christianity.

Most Jews rejected the notion that Jesus is God or the son of God as a violation of the 2nd commandment, though this “problem” was addressed with the teaching of the Trinity and the revised commandments:

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Keep the Sabath day

In denying the legitimacy of Jesus as God, and in refusing to worship Jesus, Mary or any other saints, Jews essentially denied the legitimacy of Christianity.

Thus they were seen as a threat to Christian leaders, who ironically made Judaism, the religion of Christ, a target of Christian hatred, passed down from leaders to followers, through 2,000 years.

In the 7th century, common era, Islam was created by Muhammad, although Muslims believe that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus all were Islamic prophets. Though Islam has its roots in Judaism and Christianity, Muslims and Christians repeatedly have warred, and both repeatedly persecuted the Jews.

As is common among religions, schisms occur among the less devout and the most orthodox. Christianity split into Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant denominations. Judaism is divided into Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed movements, while Islam divided into many schools, the primary of which are Sunni and Shia.

While early on, these divisions resulted in acrimony and even wars and murder in the name of God, the various divisions of Christianity and Judaism no longer engage in internecine armed combat.

Islam however, perhaps because it is younger, still is in civil war, particularly among Sunni, Shia and Wahhabi.

All of the above is to put into context, the current Mideast wars, especially those involving Hamas, a Sunni Muslim group, al Qaeda and the Taliban (radical Wahhabi Muslim movements), Hezbollah (a Shia Muslim group) and other Islamic groups often labeled as terrorist.

Ostensibly, the current Mideast war, involving Israel and Gaza, is a land dispute, with ownership claims dating back at least 3,000 years.

But, the amount of land involved including the disputed land (total about the size of the island of Sardinia), is minuscule (blue is Israel).

monetary sovereignty

Considering that the borders of almost every nation have been determined in wars, one wonders why, among all nations, the borders of, and even the existence of, Israel continues to be the subject of endless fighting.

I suggest that the current war between Israel and Gaza merely is a manifestation of ongoing religious wars between Christianity and Islam, and Islamic civil wars, that have gone on for the past 1300 years.

Religious wars are unlike political wars. While all wars are fought for political power, political wars have sub-motives: land, oil, water, forests, cattle or merely the increased military power that comes with increased population and extended borders. The purpose of political wars usually is to gain or protect some asset.

Religious wars are different. Yes, they are about power and assets. But additionally, they always are passionate, and they are meant to rid the world of “infidels,” i.e. other religions.

When Israel gave Gaza to the Muslims, the act relied on the false Western narrative that Islam wanted land, freedom self-determination for its people. Based on that Judeo-Christian logic, the Israelis left in Gaza thousand of greenhouses, used to grow crops for internal consumption and export. Israel expected gratitude for doing what perhaps no other nation ever has done.

But the Muslims destroyed the greenhouses, which shocked the Israelis. It shouldn’t have, for the Gazan leadership wanted neither land, nor freedom nor self-determination for its citizens. It wanted, and continues to want, the destruction of Israel and of Judaism, and later, the destruction of Christianity— all of whom are considered infidels.

(Right wing Christians understand this, which is why many are strong supporters of Israeli Jews, while ironically having been long time intolerants of American Jews. To Jews this is puzzling, though it makes perfect sense in the war between Christianity and Islam. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”)

The killing of Gazan civilians in the current hostilities, is widely decried, though civilian deaths are common in war. America and its allies killed 140,000 in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki. Around 600,000 German civilians died during the allies’ wartime raids on Germany, including 76,000 German children. In July, 1943, during a single night in Hamburg, 45,000 people perished in a vast firestorm.

And these civilians were targeted, while Israel claims it tries to avoid civilians. But Hamas places its rocket launchers in or near hospitals, houses and schools, and urges its civilians to martyr themselves in front of bombs. That is a religious war, where martyrdom is welcomed as a weapon.

Another difference between political and religious wars is leadership. Political wars are led by agreed-upon leaders, who can evaluate real situations, and can, if necessary negotiate peace.

Religious wars are led by emissaries of God, who lead only a fraction of their religion, and who do not have the power nor the desire to negotiate peace, lest they be deposed by other, more radical religious leaders.

Hamas does not wish to negotiate peace with infidels. It wishes to destroy infidels. Nor does it have the power to speak for Islam, all of which considers Jews, Christians and opposing Islamic sects to be infidels.

When America, Russia and England defeated Germany, Italy and Japan, America instituted the Marshall plan that helped revive its former enemies. Today, short of a non-combatant “cold war,” we have reasonably peaceful relations with “the Axis.”

Despite massive killings on both sides, our people do not hate the people of these nations.

But, short of committing mass suicide, there never can be peace for Israel. There can be a cessation of active hostilities in a religious war, but there always will be hatred, that can boil over with the next perceived insult or the next vocal religious leader.

Those who criticize Israel for not giving Palestinians more land, or for killing civilians, are thinking with their logical, secular brains, but this is not a logical, secular battle. It is an illogical, religious fight between Christianity and Islam, with Israel being the point of Christianity’s spear.

In religion, there are no facts; only stories. These are mine.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)

9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)


10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


28 thoughts on “–The oldest war that cannot end.

  1. I think you’re mostly right, especially that this war won’t end. There are facts in history, and you have cited several.

    What strikes me is that Muslims are not only fighting Jews in Palestine; they recently fought Christians in Kosovo; they fight Hindus in India; they fight Buddhists; and, as you said, they fight amongst themselves. And the basis for all of the conflicts is religion, and only religion. No winning of territory will end the conflicts, until one side or the other is completely wiped out. The UN creation of a Jewish state is often cited as a reason, but that doesn’t explain all the rest of the conflicts.

    Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus are not at war with each other, and haven’t been for quite some time, but Muslims (not all, to be accurate) fight all the others, and have done so for centuries. Absent a complete reinvention of their religion, I don’t see how it can ever end except in the annihilation of one side or the other.

    One possible outcome is that the Islamists will get hold of a WMD, and use it, sparking massive retaliation by a much more militarily powerful enemy, who will not tolerate the possibility of another such attack. The US reaction to 9/11 could pale in comparison.


    1. “….One possible outcome is that the Islamists will get hold of a WMD..”
      Reminds me of the movie The Sum of All Fears. Also,I think it was Muslims who burned down the Library at Alexandria, perhaps more than once.
      Generally speaking, I find all organized traditional religion to be destructive and selfish. The worst thing you can do to a child is brain wash it into be’lie’ving anything without actual proof, instead accept second hand gods, group think and hearsay.


      1. @ tetrahedron720: The Library at Alexandria was burned by the Romans in 48 BC, and again in 270 AD. The Christian Pope of Alexandria burned it in 391 AD. Muslims burned it in 642 AD.

        However, far more destructive, in terms of knowledge lost, was the Mongol destruction of the Muslim “House of Wisdom” library in Baghdad in 1258 AD.

        No single group of people has a monopoly on aggression and militancy. Yet all groups consider themselves to be righteous victims of aggression and militancy. The more aggressive and militant a group is, the more its members claim to be “victims.”

        For example, average Americans are extremely aggressive and militant, yet they claim that Muslims alone are aggressive and militant. From this lie springs endless other lies and self-serving propaganda.

        Americans bomb and invade Muslim places at will, calling their victims “terrorists.” US Secretary of State Madeline Albright boasted of having murdered half a million Iraqi children via a blockade, saying “It was worth it.” There is Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, the drones — the list of US atrocities against Muslims is endless.

        Despite all this, average Americans imagine that they are innocent “victims” of Muslims. If you question this delusion, they become enraged, since they know inside that they are depraved. That’s why 22 US military personnel commit suicide every single day. They can no longer suppress the truth inside them, nor tolerate a society that denies the truth outside them.


    2. If you consider the war in Kosovo as a religious war, then war in Bosnia was a war of Orthodox Christians against Muslims and Catholic Christians, and NATO bombing of Serbia a war of Christians against Christians.

      Though these are not technically wars, there are instances of recent attacks against Muslims by Hindus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India#1992_Bombay_riots ).

      With the possible exception of Buddhism, no religion is innocent.


      1. Thank you for saying “possible” exception of Buddhism. In reality, Buddhists are just as violent as any other group.

        Japanese Buddhists committed many atrocities in China and Southeast Asia during WW II, and also against Buddhists in Korea. After WW II, Korean Buddhists went to war with each other. The Buddhist nations of Cambodia and Vietnam have frequently made war on each other. One of their wars lasted 14.5 years (1977-91). Afterward in Cambodia, Buddhists and Communists entered into a bloody civil war. There are many Buddhists in China, which has Buddhist Tibet under a military occupation. Chinese Buddhist texts justify violence (e.g. the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Upayakaushalya Sutra, and the Kalachakra Tantra). In Thailand there have long been bloody battles between Buddhists and Socialists, and also between Buddhists and Malaysian Muslims (in southern Thailand). In Sri Lanka, Sinhalese Buddhists exterminated every Tamil they could find. In Siam (Myanmar) Buddhists are ultra-militarized, with most temples serving as military garrisons.

        The point is, all religious groups are violent, and all claim to be the only group that isn’t violent.

        All of them claim to be innocent peace-loving victims with “God on their side.”


        1. But the Buddhists didn’t go to war against the Buddhists because they were Buddhist. Those were political wars, to use Rodger’s terminology. Religion was irrelevant.

          Only the Muslims, nowadays, wage war because of religion. And again, not all Muslims. Just being religious isn’t what causes the violence.


        2. Every side claims to be victims of some other side. Every side rationalizes its aggression as “righteous” and “necessary.” Every side claims that it is an exception to this universal pattern.

          A classic example is when we try to rationalize our aggression against Muslims by singling Muslims out, claiming, “Alone among religious groups, Muslims wage war because of religion.”

          In this way we rationalize our aggression, just like all the other sides do.

          The reality is that ALL wars are political. Always and everywhere. All wars are struggles for power over others, or they consist of defending against attack or theft from others.

          It makes no difference whether a war is waged in the name of a religion, an ideology, a nationality, or whatever. All wars are struggles for power. Therefore all wars are political. Period. Even when you fight to resist an invader, you struggle to retain power over your own body and livelihood.

          You say that, “Religion is irrelevant” for non-Muslims. In reality, religion is mere window dressing for power struggles. Thus, religion is irrelevant for ALL sides.

          When the USA conducts its daily atrocities in the name of “freedom and democracy,” this nonsense is religious in nature. Indeed, the catch-phrase, “They hate us for our freedoms” is identical (in practice) to claiming, “The infidels have blasphemed against our god.”

          When it comes to militants, all sides are mirror images of each other. Militant Jews, militant Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, whatever — they are identical in function, and they each claim to be unique exceptions to the universal pattern.

          Always and everywhere the psychological mechanisms are the same. Racism, religion, bigotry and ideology all spring from the same struggle for power. Each is filled with hate and gibberish.

          We and our (current) allies are righteous and innocent. All others are evil barbarians. This bullshit is perpetual. Only the scenery changes. Today country X is an ally, tomorrow an enemy, and the next day an ally again. The USSR was a US ally in the world wars, and then an enemy in the Cold War. Japan was a US ally in WW I, then an enemy in WW II, and is now an ally again.

          Round and round it goes like a merry-go-round, each militant claiming to be unique among the others, while he rides his little horse to a bullshit song that never changes.


        3. All wars are alike in that they kill people. But there is a fundamental difference between religious wars and political wars.

          Those who can’t see the difference offer useless “solutions” like “Everyone does it so everyone is at fault.”


          At any moment in time, someone is more at fault than someone else for most political wars — unless one believes Hitler was no more at fault than Poland.

          Religious wars are a special animal. God is in the center. He is never wrong and simultaneously, is at fault. That is why religious wars are so intractable. Wrong and right are on the same side.

          I’ve not heard of a political war that lasted 1,500 years, with no end in sight.


        4. “I’ve not heard of a political war that lasted 1,500 years, with no end in site.” (sic)

          Humans have been more or less continually at war since the dawn of civilization, and perhaps since the dawn of the species. Since war is always about power, war is always political. Therefore political war has been continual since Day One.

          And since each side claims that it is “righteous,” and has “morality” on its side, all political wars involve religion in one form or another.

          That is to say, all wars are political AND religious.

          The supposed distinction between “political” war and “religious” war is false and self-serving. It is used, for example, to rationalize “political” (i.e. “righteous”) war against evil (i.e. “religious”) enemies. In reality, all warriors are political, and all politics involve religious-style rationalization. No amount of sophistry will conceal this fact.

          An example is the false claim that Muslims are fundamentally different from others (i.e. Muslims only engage in “religious” war). To indulge in this false claim is to indulge in sheer bigotry and racism, in order to justify a “righteous political” war against “evil religious” Muslims.

          Militant Jews, Muslims, Christians, and so on are all mirror images of each other, especially in their denial that they are mirror images.


  2. There is no value in pointing fingers at whom is more responsible. There are no innocent parties.

    The point of the post was that there are two different kinds of wars:

    1. Political wars based on greed, with a goal of acquiring assets
    2. Religious wars based on hatred, with a goal of eliminating the infidels.

    While political wars can end, when either or both parties feel there is little to be gained by continuing, religious wars never end. They may go from boil to simmer, but so long as the other side exists, the hatred never ends.

    The Israeli/Gaza situation is quite complicated.

    1. Israel is fighting a political war. It wants land and survival. It has no desire to eliminate Islam.

    2. Hamas is fighting a religious war. It doesn’t care about the greenhouses Israel left it, nor does it care about the Gazan populace, except as pawns. Hamas simply wishes to eradicate the infidels — Jewry — which is why it cannot admit Israel has a right to exist.

    3. America is fighting both wars: Political greed for oil, power and other assets + the 1,500-year religious war between Christianity and Islam.

    Because the goals are different, the claims are different, and accommodations for peace are impossible.

    Those who are anti-Israel claim they want that nation to surrender land. Logic dictates that no one really cares about that minuscule sliver of scrub desert.

    So all the gibberish about who was there first and who really owns the West Bank, and who is more guilty than whom, either is disingenuous or is based on ignorance.

    If Israel gave up every inch of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem (just as it gave up Gaza and the Sinai Desert), the war would continue, until all the Jews were dead.

    Those who are Anti-Hamas believe Gaza should stop shooting rockets into Israel. But even if Hamas completely ended all belligerence, the hatred would continue. Its religious hatred been bred into Muslim children and grandchildren for decades.

    And Israel still would want the land as a survival asset.

    So, when one side decries the rockets and the other side decries the civilian deaths, they are talking past one another. The rockets have to continue (with perhaps short respites), else what is the purpose of Hamas? Surely not to benefit its people.

    And the civilians have to die, else how can Israel defend itself and solidify its hold on land?

    Meanwhile, there is no other “side.” There are other “sides.” If Israel, by some miracle, found peace with the Sunni, the Shia and Wahhabi would continue the war, as would Christianity.

    So what is the solution? The solution is to realize there is no real solution. It’s like asking, “What is the solution to greed and hatred.”

    Christianity and Islam will continue with mutual hatred. Jews will remain in the middle. (Christians also will continue to hate domestic Jews, and Muslims will continue to hate one another.)

    The wars will boil then simmer, then boil again.

    Although humans want solutions, sometimes human survival is the only solution we can hope for.

    That should be our goal as humans. Survival of our species, by mutual survival.


    1. Aside from some fringe groups, like Nazis and KKK, I don’t see a big problem, in the US, caused by any sort of group hatred syndrome. American Christians, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, Whites all intermarry with very little of the Montague vs. Capulet syndrome that was common as little as 50 years ago. We accept each other today more readily than the descendants of the British accepted the immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland in the 19th and 20th centuries, when all the groups involved were White Christians. We’re doing better all the time at living up to our ideals. Not perfect, but improving. There are still some bigots, maybe always will be, but they are dying out and being ostracized by evolving social norms.

      It’s a change wrought one person at a time.

      As for political wars, I think the explosive growth of world trade since WWII has dampened the coveting of other lands, and raised the cost of war among first world countries. There may continue to be conflicts among small groups in poorer parts of the world, but as prosperity spreads to them (as it has been doing) I think they may eventually find a way to set aside their differences in favor of common goals, as Europe has done.

      MMT would hasten that process.


        1. I know you’re old enough to remember when blacks rode in the back of the bus, ate at separate lunch counters, went to separate schools, and were lynched on a regular basis. When “gay” meant “happy”, and less polite words were used to describe sexual preference. When the notion of a black President or a Mexican-American Senator would have been laughed at.

          My black daughter-in-law faced none of the same treatment that she would have received in those days, for marrying a white man. My Mexican-American grandchildren likewise are treated the same as all the other kids in their school.

          But don’t take my word for it. Ask a black man whose grandson is on a football scholarship at the University of Alabama if he was treated as well when he was 18 and wouldn’t have been able to go there at all, no matter how well he played football or how much money he had. Ask a gay couple who got married last week if they are treated better now or 40 years ago when they fell in love.

          It’s not perfect, but it’s sure a hell of a lot better, and the few who would want to go back to the old way are SOL. (I hope you understand that acronym, it’s been around as long as you and me.)


        2. Yes, better.
          In America.
          For now.

          But the Israel / Gaza war has provided all the excuse the Jew-haters in Europe need, to crawl out from under their rocks, as you may have noticed.

          The history of bigotry is that it never goes away. Some decades are better, some are worse.And religious bigotry is the worst.

          Historically, Jews had done very well in every country from which they later were expelled or murdered.

          And gays may be out of the closet, but they’re not out of the woods. The battle continues to rage in the American courts.

          Tell your daughter in law not to go to Uganda or Senegal, and your grandchildren not to drive in the South.


    2. Reza Aslan in his wonderful book on the subject entitled “Beyond Fundamentalism”, makes much the same point as your original point, Rodger. But instead of religious wars, he refers to them as “cosmic wars”: wars on earth that mimic, in the participants’ minds, the cosmic war between good and evil.

      However, his “story” has a much more thoughtful and believable analysis than your superficial tale. He pretty much validates quatloosx’s points; essentially that all Abrahamic religions have been, and continue to be willing combatants in cosmic war (he doesn’t discuss non-Abrahamic religions.)

      You say Israel is fighting a political war? Gush Emunim, Religious Zionists, have become one of the most powerful political movements in Israel. They insist on a state governed by religious law, with the ultimate goal of dismantling the secular state altogether. They are dedicated to removing all non-Jews from Israel, as Hamas is dedicated to removing the Israeli state.

      In our country, the Fundamentalist Right-wing Christians continue to chip away at the secular underpinnings of our Representative Democracy.
      So, is it an “attempt to spread the blame”, or is it recognizing the facts on the ground? RE: “Hitler’s to blame” ignores the complicity of that other war-monger and British hero, Churchill.

      BTW, the solution to greed, IMO, is make sure everyone has their survival needs met. Hatred? That’s a different problem.


      1. “Gush Emunim, Religious Zionists, have become one of the most powerful political movements in Israel.”

        Nonsense. Who told you that?

        “His “story” has a much more thoughtful and believable analysis than your superficial tale.”

        Are you saying a book is more thoughtful and believable than a 1/2 page, “superficial” summary?

        Understood: Everything is equal. Hitler is equal to Churchill. And religious war is equal to political war. And terrorists = soldiers. How about Stalin = Obama? It’s all the same, right?

        Funny how WWII ended, and we rebuilt our former enemies, while Christians vs. Muslims continues, for 1500 years.

        I fully expect that once Hamas destroys Israel, they’ll just pitch right in and rebuild it for the Jews. Maybe they even will leave greenhouses for the Jews to grow food and build hospitals to care for sick Jews.

        Sound about right?


        1. Gush Emunim sources: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/penncip/lustick/lustick13.html
          Reza Aslan: Beyond Fundamentalism

          I’m saying Aslan’s analysis covers the propensity for ALL Abrahamic religions to engage in “cosmic wars”, and doesn’t bias the analysis against Muslims. Your analysis seems slanted to support your premise that Muslims are (the only) ones who wage religious wars. Perhaps this is an unintended consequence of monotheism: no room for any other possibilities.

          I’m not sure why you counter with the irrational, “everything is equal”. Call the errors where you see them, AND don’t ignore the inconvenient truths. Hitler only got half of what he deserved. But DON’T paint Churchill with the brush of innocence or victimhood when his imperial arrogance was just as instrumental in the horror that ensued – the bombing of innocents prior to Germany’s bombing of England (“Human Smoke” by Nicholson Baker, Simon & Schuster, 2008). But then, perhaps, the inhumanity of the victor proves it “was necessary” and that “God” was really on the victor’s side.

          I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Hamas will destroy Israel. The question SHOULD be, if and when Israel has achieved the objective of the religious zionists, will Israel rebuild the Palestinian culture, or will they establish a Zionist state governed by the Torah? Have you asked yourself why the Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses, or are you content to view this as a slap in the face of the Israelis?

          Your very first statement was correct: you DID sail into dangerous waters here.


        2. Your statement, “Gush Emunim, Religious Zionists, have become one of the most powerful political movements in Israel.” not only is false, but is obsolete by perhaps 20 years. I don’t think they even exist any more, but if they do, they certainly are not “one of the most powerful”.

          You really must stop reading those “slanted” articles about “Zionists”?)

          The fact that you think Hitler = Churchill demonstrates what is known as “false equivalence.” It’s a dishonest debating technique.

          Gun lovers say, “Guns = cars” (because they both kill people).
          Street gangs = police (because they both enforce their laws)
          Terrorists = soldiers
          Medicine = poison
          Democrats = Republicans

          The list goes on and on, forever.

          Any two things can be seen as equal, depending on the selected criteria. Given selected criteria, I could “prove” that a bee = a boulder.

          But anyone who claims not to understand the differences between Hitler and Churchill, guns and cars, street gangs and police, terrorists and soldiers, medicine and poison, Democrats and Republicans either is a liar or a damn fool.

          Anyone interested only in “winning a debate” rather than in learning or teaching, has no reason to read this blog. This isn’t a high school debating club. It’s a place where people can think, learn and teach. No juveniles wanted.

          You said, “if and when Israel has achieved the objective of the religious zionists. . . ” and my analysis is “slanted” ??? So now, that has become Israel’s objective??

          What part is “slanted”?

          Finally, I had said, “I suggest that the current war between Israel and Gaza merely is a manifestation of ongoing religious wars between Christianity and Islam. . .

          Your response: ” . . . your premise that Muslims are (the only) ones who wage religious wars,” either an accidental or purposeful misquote. Don’t you just hate that “slanted” stuff?


        3. Rodger, you also wrote that Israel was fighting a political war, implying that Israel was in a different category than Hamas. So which is it? Is Israel engaging in a religious war, or a political war? Or is Hamas really fighting a war of nationalism?

          My POV is that there are powerful religious zionist politics in Israel that are being ignored because the MSM WANTS you to ignore them: part of your Big Lie, I would argue.

          The problem is NOT religion, as you SEEM to want to make it. The problem is Fundamentalists of any stripe: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Atheists.

          Also, you are the only one to equate Hitler and Churchill. For me to say that they both have blood on their hands is NOT saying they are equivalent. It’s saying that it’s important not to ignore a POV in order to defend your own biases.\

          quatloosx had the thoughtful response. Rather than consider his points intelligently, you snidely dismissed them in an attempt to defend your own weak premises.

          My suggestion is, again, that you stick to MMT and MS, and avoid areas where your fundamentalism gets in the way of your intelligence.


        4. Thank you for your expert opinion on this subject, especially for your claim that Gush Emunim (which disappeared 20 or 30 years ago), “have become one of the most powerful political movements in Israel.”

          I appreciate your knowledgeable advice.

          I suppose one could argue that Hamas is a secular, not a religious organization. And one also could argue that Israel is a religious, not a secular organization. I personally would disagree with both arguments.


  3. Roger,

    I have been touring Germany for the last 30 days where the hotels offer TV in several different languages. To be sure there is BBC, and CNN International. However, I do watch some of the foreign language programs even if I don’t understand them.

    I don’t know how this is being broadcast in the States. From my vantage point this is not war; it’s slaughter.


  4. See how children, who only wanted a better life, crossed the Mexican border, and panicked America. Texas calls out the National Guard to beat back the children.





    Oops, sorry. It isn’t children, it’s killers. And they don’t want a better life; they want to kidnap and exterminate Jews.

    And it isn’t the Mexican border; it’s the Gazan border. And it isn’t the National Guard; it’s the Israeli army.

    But, as some readers say, everything is the same, including the fact that both America and Israel don’t like it.


  5. My last word on these topics…

    Neo-Nazis despise me as much as do Jewish supremacists.

    The reason is that when I communicated with both sides in the past (not at the same time), I explained to each side precisely how it mirrored the other side. I used firm logic and specific examples. My intent was to prove to each side that the other side was not quite as alien and omnipotent as was imagined, and hence there was no need for so much hate.

    No matter how diplomatic I was, no matter how polite, careful, courteous, encouraging, and sympathetic, each side always erupted into fury.

    The Neo-Nazis called me a “Jew lover.” The Jewish supremacists called me “anti-Semitic.” Both sides spewed their usual filth at me. Each side hated the other side, and both hated me most of all.

    Since most people are not able to rationally discuss these topics, I generally avoid them.

    Likewise, since most people (outside Rodger’s blog) are not able to rationally discuss economics or Monetary Sovereignty, I never comment in other blogs.


    1. Thank you for your reasoned approach, quatloosx. I agree that there is much value for this blog when it deals with money and monetary sovereignty. When it strays into personal prejudices, such as religion and gun rights (are these the same thing?), we’re no longer preaching to the choir. Maybe that’s good?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s