The flip side of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s observation about the line between good and evil running through us, which will be there until the second coming & for which we need to be always on guard as we live.
I think this is the important point of your essay and it is of universal application.
"Hamas is a philosophy at odds with Reality. And philosophies at odds with Reality only die when more people are willing to align themselves with Reality.
Throughout history, there have been tribes and individuals who have loudly and often violently proclaimed their specialness, failing to recognize that everyone else who has ever lived on this planet is made of the same basic stuff."
I add a few observations to support it. I was prompted to do so by Mark S Griffith’s commentary which fails to grasp the point you are making when he says:
"It is exactly this sort of liberal thinking and tendency to equivocate everything and everyone that has landed Israel in this situation in the first place. Instead of a clear eyed understanding that if they are to survive, enough Arabs must die to make them stop wanting to eradicate the Jews and Israel."
Constantinos Kollias’ beautiful photograph of the Acropolis of Athens which you used as the epigram for “Why civilization is at Stake,” calls these words to mind:
"For by nature we all equally, both barbarians and Greeks, have an entirely similar origin: for it is fitting to fulfil the natural satisfactions which are necessary to all men: all have the ability to fulfil these in the same way, and in all this none of us is different either as barbarians or as Greek, for we all breathe into the air with mouth and nostrils."
This, from nearly 3000 years ago, is contained in a fifth-century BCE papyrus fragment, On Truth, attributed to Antiphon, an Athenian orator and thinker. It succinctly states why the rational man knows that other men have the same essential ‘humanness’ as he has.
Around 2500 years later, at the beginning of the period now known as the Enlightenment --the great ‘Age of Reason’ -- John Locke (1632-1704) expressed the same truth when he explained that all men are born free, equal "in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another", independent and with capacity for rationality. (See Book II of Two Treatises, §§ 4, 54, 61.)
This segues to your commentary on the “I-Thou” lens through which may be seen connectedness and common humanity with others. This lens enables an objective and observable view of the natural humanness of each human being. Whilst each is different, the human essence is the same. In contrast, the “I-It” lens juxtaposes discordant concepts. "
The “It” does not derive from objective observation of humankind’s natural humanness. It uses faith-based ideas to focus on observable differences, justifying assumptions of superiority and inferiority, rightness and wrongness, based on those differences, even though there is no rational basis for doing so.
More importantly in the present context, the differences may be the faith-based ideas themselves. Because they are faith-based, it is extraordinarily difficult to effect reconciliation between them, or toleration one of another.
This does not mean that all humanity-denying conduct is the product of faith-based ideas but, even when the simple desire to exercise power and control is the motivation, an ideology which defies Reality is usually called in aid.
In Locke’s England, the existence of God and the rightness of Christianity was taken for granted. The main divide was between Protestantism and Catholicism and people had been condemned to be burned at the stake for the “heresy” of proclaiming one or the other, depending on the prevailing monarch’s religious allegiance.
Locke’s qualification to his famous declarations of freedom and equality shows how faith-based ideas may provide justification for “Subordination or Subjection.”
"TO understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Acions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man.
A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another: there being nothing more evident, than that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection, unless the Lord and Master of them all, should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another, and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty.
That means that the conclusions from observation and reason could be set to one side if something different was decreed by the Lord and Master of them all."
The 1988 Hamas Covenant invokes Allah. For example:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. "(Article 6).
The Charter indicates what raising the banner entails. For example:
"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
"The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised." (Article 15)
According to the Hamas Charter, Allah as Lord and Master has issued those commands.
Reality is that which exists. The Hamas ideology is at odds with reality because it is grounded on the ‘commands’ of a non-existent commander. Its sustenance is faith, ingrained from birth.
In England, as the Age of Reason advanced, laws condemning heresy were discontinued and over time other laws supporting the Christian religion were also repealed. This is an example of the death of a philosophy at odds with reality. Not the general idea of Christianity, which is still there to some extent, but the fundamentalist form which demanded vengeance against those voicing disagreement with the prevailing orthodoxy.
That’s what must happen in the Moslem world. When it happens, the Hamas ideology will lose its sustenance. It may take a long time. Similar ideologies ruled the Western world for centuries.
Killing “Arabs”, as Mr Griffith would have it, won’t get rid of the Hamas faith-based ideology. It’s more likely to reinforce it. What might be more likely to assist is for the Western world to set an example by heeding Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s warning about new ideologies being well on the way to destroying Western civilisation.
Regarding the present conflict, whatever arguments may be raised about the legitimacy of its origins and the conduct of its government, Israel is a sovereign state which is entitled to defend itself against terrorist aggression. It ought not to go beyond self-defense. I cannot, at least presently, form a view of what constitutes self-defense in the context of this conflict.
While it is important to acknowledge that we are born with a heart that has a tendency toward evil (forgive me for a rough quote of the Torah but I didn't attend Yeshiva, I had to settle for Southern Baptist Sunday School), it is what we do with God in our lives going forward that can change that.
I appreciate the author's attempt to humanize the Gazan's (there is NO SUCH THING as "Palestine" or "Palestinian". It is LITERALLY a construct of 1964 NYC PR firm, look it up) there are times when one MUST dehumanize their enemy, or risk annihilation. This is one of those times. Anyone who has been to war and had their life at risk and been forced to kill in order to not be killed, will tell you exactly that. "All Quiet on the Western Front" was a novel, and a good one. But it was and remains a giant piece of fiction. While it appealed to me as an naïve teen, I now know it as a propaganda piece designed to cause me to approach life with emotion, rather than reason. The main theme of "All Quiet..." is all war is bad. That is childish emoting in the extreme.
In the same way, Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" tugs on the heart strings, doesn't it? Makes it clear that Franco and those dirty, filthy nationalists were BAD. But then go and do a little historical research and read what atrocities the "republicans" (they were actually communists supported by the Soviet Union) committed in their quest to overthrow the duly elected government of Spain. (Note to the squeamish; it involved gang raping nuns and literally crucifying priests on the altars of their own churches.) BTW, these atrocities happened BEFORE Franco came to power. Franco was simply a reaction to what the Left was doing. And FWIW, this is precisely what lies in store for us in the United States. DJT was simply the first and mildest of pushbacks against the Left's murderous thirst for power. There will be much stronger pushback in the future. It will be ugly but pain and fear are all communists and Muslims understand and submit to.
It is exactly this sort of liberal thinking and tendency to equivocate everything and everyone that has landed Israel in this situation in the first place. Instead of a clear eyed understanding that if they are to survive, enough Arabs must die to make them stop wanting to eradicate the Jews and Israel. That is the ONLY WAY!!! It is how we defeated Germany and Japan. We bombed them until they said, "no mas". It is precisely why we have NOT won in any conflict since in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. We no longer have the cultural confidence to impose our will on bad actors. What results is the world we now live in.
If Israel is to survive, it MUST eliminate Hamas. Kill EVERY member of Hamas and then ship the rest to the West Bank and let Fatah sort them out, as there is zero love lost between Fatah, which has kind of sort of made it's peace with Israel (but not really but that is a discussion for another day), and Hamas.
This is no time for mushy, soft headed thinking. Imagine that you come home from work and find a bad man attempting to rape your wife and daughters and he has already killed two of your son's. Are you going to search for your "inner Nazi" or are you going to pull out your conceal carry weapon and send that animal to meet his maker and then straight to hell. I know what I will do.
The time for self-flection should occur in high school and college, where one is presented with history, literature, religious instruction and so on to help one to form a solid world view. For most folks, this happens by the time they are 25. Unfortunately, our higher education system has become simply a powerful tool of the Left to indoctrinate young people with lies. Additionally, we have extended adolescence well into most people's 40's and by then they have been so thoroughly brain washed they believe nonsense like men can give birth and the planet is more important than a human being, to name just two examples from a list of seemingly infinite choices.
If you can't distinguish between the Gazans, whose mothers proudly proclaim, "We hate Jews more than we love our own children", and Israel and the Jews, who have suffered for decades at the hands of death cultists who worship a false god called, Allah, then you aren't open minded and tolerant. No, you have lost the ability to think rationally. Keep in mind, in the face of all the evil and destruction that has been done to Israel by Hamas, the IDF still goes out of their way to avoid killing and injuring "innocents" (they aren't but you get the idea). And that comes at a cost of Israeli lives. Would you be willing to send your son to serve in IDF under those circumstances? I am not sure either.
Bottom line? There is good and evil in this world. We all better be able to tell the difference.
BTW, the use of the second person in this response is not necessarily intended for Mr. Brownstein.
Please pray for Israel and the IDF and for its leaders to have wisdom, resolve and courage in this existential fight. And consider sending some $$$ to a charity that is supporting Israeli's and members of the IDF.
CORRECTION!
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is NOT a Muslim "reformer". She is an avowed atheist who has rightly rejected Islam as a death and personality cult dedicated to Mohammed.
I reread the piece to make sure that my first comment wasn't too harsh (it wasn't harsh enough!) and I came up with a couple of additional, brief points.
First, anyone that has read just a modicum of history and is a elementary student of human nature, or has simply read the Old Testament, particularly, Genesis, knows that the statement, "Few reading this essay are capable of heinous crimes" is not only wrong but either hopelessly naïve or a blind ideologue, or probably both. Time and time again, normal people, placed in the right circumstances, are capable of all sorts of evil to their fellow man. Better yet, check out "The Stanford Prison" experiment. You will have to look it up yourself, as it appears that Substack doesn't allow for links in the comments. I can't believe the author of this piece isn't aware of it and many others like it.
Just during WWII, both the Soviets and the Germans (not even Nazis) committed some of the most heinous war crimes imaginable. And please understand, these were not front line shock troops committing these atrocities. Nope, these were men called up from the reserves to handle "mop up" duty. Meaning lawyers, accountants, bakers, mechanics and so on. Just everyday men who before the onset of the war, were just middle class and lower class family men from Germany. And that duty included, among other tasks, the ahem, elimination of civilians left in the wake of conquest, Hell, even Allied troop in Europe, and Yanks in the Pacific did things never before heard of in response to gross violations by the Japs and Nazis of the Geneva Convention. And most of them say they would do it again without a second's hesitation.
Next, "the brotherhood of man" bullshit. Not only do I not want to be "brothers" with someone who has sworn to his god to kill me and rape my wife and daughters, it isn't possible. And why, for pete's sake would any sane individual want that relationship? I tell you why. The don't. That sort of talk is simply soothing virtue signaling for those who don't want to face realities of life and the evil that is everywhere on this earth.
Here is another doozy. "And philosophies at odds with Reality only die when more people are willing to align themselves with Reality." Um, sorry no, that's no how this works. The only way "philosophies at odds with reality die", particularly if that philosophy includes the murder of other, innocent folks, is to kill as many adherents to that EVIL philosophy as necessary to get the rest of them to give it up. F***, not be insulting here, you seem like a nice guy but...woe, the level of naïve ignorance on display here is gigantic.
Here is another, spoken by the son of the founder of Hamas “As long as we continue to search for enemies anywhere but inside ourselves, there will always be a Middle East problem.” Wrong again. Nope, the search for enemies for Israel is in Gaza, the West Bank, and most of the rest of the Arab and Muslim world and on the Left in Europe and America. Cuz while the Jews are searching within themselves for that enemy, those Gazans and other Muslims will be busy killing Jews. As an aside, has Mr. Brownstein never heard of he Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya? It might explain where this seemingly reasonable young man is coming from.
Onto the comments of Dr. Egger. While she was searching her heart for her own "inner Nazi", what did she do to help that hateful young man learn not to hate?
Part of the problem with folks who have left God out of the equation of life, is that they judge intentions rather than actions. The bible teaches us that it is actions for which we are judged by God and others.
Here are two great examples from history of actions meaning more than words and intentions. Both Harry S Truman and Richard M. Nixon had notorious reputations as anti-Semites. Both used all sorts of bigoted and ugly language about the Jews and their "greedy bankers" and so on and so forth. But, BUT, when the chips were down for Israel's absolute survival, both of these men, going against the advice of their own cabinets and the State Department took steps to assure Israel's very life. Truman by making the US the first country to officially recognize the new nation of Israel and Nixon when he authorized shipments of ammo and armaments after Israel was nearly pushed into the sea at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War.
I have a public record of too numerous to list essays about the horrors of Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. Many of those essays cover the problem that you mention that ordinary people may not resist the herd and will be obedient to authority. So dismiss this essay if you want but don't tell me I don't understand reality.
I stated clearly that my essay was not a guide to policy. It was intended as a useful pointer about a simple choice we can make in everyday encounters that may make our corner of the world a bit brighter. Nothing in the essay suggests that I won't use force against a violent criminal.
The flip side of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s observation about the line between good and evil running through us, which will be there until the second coming & for which we need to be always on guard as we live.
Dear Barry,
I think this is the important point of your essay and it is of universal application.
"Hamas is a philosophy at odds with Reality. And philosophies at odds with Reality only die when more people are willing to align themselves with Reality.
Throughout history, there have been tribes and individuals who have loudly and often violently proclaimed their specialness, failing to recognize that everyone else who has ever lived on this planet is made of the same basic stuff."
I add a few observations to support it. I was prompted to do so by Mark S Griffith’s commentary which fails to grasp the point you are making when he says:
"It is exactly this sort of liberal thinking and tendency to equivocate everything and everyone that has landed Israel in this situation in the first place. Instead of a clear eyed understanding that if they are to survive, enough Arabs must die to make them stop wanting to eradicate the Jews and Israel."
Constantinos Kollias’ beautiful photograph of the Acropolis of Athens which you used as the epigram for “Why civilization is at Stake,” calls these words to mind:
"For by nature we all equally, both barbarians and Greeks, have an entirely similar origin: for it is fitting to fulfil the natural satisfactions which are necessary to all men: all have the ability to fulfil these in the same way, and in all this none of us is different either as barbarians or as Greek, for we all breathe into the air with mouth and nostrils."
This, from nearly 3000 years ago, is contained in a fifth-century BCE papyrus fragment, On Truth, attributed to Antiphon, an Athenian orator and thinker. It succinctly states why the rational man knows that other men have the same essential ‘humanness’ as he has.
Around 2500 years later, at the beginning of the period now known as the Enlightenment --the great ‘Age of Reason’ -- John Locke (1632-1704) expressed the same truth when he explained that all men are born free, equal "in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another", independent and with capacity for rationality. (See Book II of Two Treatises, §§ 4, 54, 61.)
This segues to your commentary on the “I-Thou” lens through which may be seen connectedness and common humanity with others. This lens enables an objective and observable view of the natural humanness of each human being. Whilst each is different, the human essence is the same. In contrast, the “I-It” lens juxtaposes discordant concepts. "
The “It” does not derive from objective observation of humankind’s natural humanness. It uses faith-based ideas to focus on observable differences, justifying assumptions of superiority and inferiority, rightness and wrongness, based on those differences, even though there is no rational basis for doing so.
More importantly in the present context, the differences may be the faith-based ideas themselves. Because they are faith-based, it is extraordinarily difficult to effect reconciliation between them, or toleration one of another.
This does not mean that all humanity-denying conduct is the product of faith-based ideas but, even when the simple desire to exercise power and control is the motivation, an ideology which defies Reality is usually called in aid.
In Locke’s England, the existence of God and the rightness of Christianity was taken for granted. The main divide was between Protestantism and Catholicism and people had been condemned to be burned at the stake for the “heresy” of proclaiming one or the other, depending on the prevailing monarch’s religious allegiance.
Locke’s qualification to his famous declarations of freedom and equality shows how faith-based ideas may provide justification for “Subordination or Subjection.”
"TO understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Acions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man.
A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another: there being nothing more evident, than that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection, unless the Lord and Master of them all, should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another, and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty.
That means that the conclusions from observation and reason could be set to one side if something different was decreed by the Lord and Master of them all."
The 1988 Hamas Covenant invokes Allah. For example:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. "(Article 6).
The Charter indicates what raising the banner entails. For example:
"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
"The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised." (Article 15)
According to the Hamas Charter, Allah as Lord and Master has issued those commands.
Reality is that which exists. The Hamas ideology is at odds with reality because it is grounded on the ‘commands’ of a non-existent commander. Its sustenance is faith, ingrained from birth.
In England, as the Age of Reason advanced, laws condemning heresy were discontinued and over time other laws supporting the Christian religion were also repealed. This is an example of the death of a philosophy at odds with reality. Not the general idea of Christianity, which is still there to some extent, but the fundamentalist form which demanded vengeance against those voicing disagreement with the prevailing orthodoxy.
That’s what must happen in the Moslem world. When it happens, the Hamas ideology will lose its sustenance. It may take a long time. Similar ideologies ruled the Western world for centuries.
Killing “Arabs”, as Mr Griffith would have it, won’t get rid of the Hamas faith-based ideology. It’s more likely to reinforce it. What might be more likely to assist is for the Western world to set an example by heeding Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s warning about new ideologies being well on the way to destroying Western civilisation.
Regarding the present conflict, whatever arguments may be raised about the legitimacy of its origins and the conduct of its government, Israel is a sovereign state which is entitled to defend itself against terrorist aggression. It ought not to go beyond self-defense. I cannot, at least presently, form a view of what constitutes self-defense in the context of this conflict.
Gary, Thank you for taking the time to add your wisdom to my essay. I will send you an email in a few moments about republishing your comment.
Thank you Barry. Wonderful - powerful.
A short poem I many have shared before:
Life Unbridled
Beyond our frozen fears and imagined needs lies another realm,
a realm unrivalled.
Beyond our beliefs, opinions, judgements and knowledge is another state,
a state of wisdom and common sense.
Beyond acceptance and tolerance is another world,
a world of love and understanding.
There, an all-embracing warmth melts the edges of division,
dissolving the illusion of you and me, of them and us.
This internal, eternal universe is home, is love,
is life unbridled – The Realm of Possibility.
Warmly ... John
John, Thanks for the kind words and for your poetic wisdom!
While it is important to acknowledge that we are born with a heart that has a tendency toward evil (forgive me for a rough quote of the Torah but I didn't attend Yeshiva, I had to settle for Southern Baptist Sunday School), it is what we do with God in our lives going forward that can change that.
I appreciate the author's attempt to humanize the Gazan's (there is NO SUCH THING as "Palestine" or "Palestinian". It is LITERALLY a construct of 1964 NYC PR firm, look it up) there are times when one MUST dehumanize their enemy, or risk annihilation. This is one of those times. Anyone who has been to war and had their life at risk and been forced to kill in order to not be killed, will tell you exactly that. "All Quiet on the Western Front" was a novel, and a good one. But it was and remains a giant piece of fiction. While it appealed to me as an naïve teen, I now know it as a propaganda piece designed to cause me to approach life with emotion, rather than reason. The main theme of "All Quiet..." is all war is bad. That is childish emoting in the extreme.
In the same way, Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" tugs on the heart strings, doesn't it? Makes it clear that Franco and those dirty, filthy nationalists were BAD. But then go and do a little historical research and read what atrocities the "republicans" (they were actually communists supported by the Soviet Union) committed in their quest to overthrow the duly elected government of Spain. (Note to the squeamish; it involved gang raping nuns and literally crucifying priests on the altars of their own churches.) BTW, these atrocities happened BEFORE Franco came to power. Franco was simply a reaction to what the Left was doing. And FWIW, this is precisely what lies in store for us in the United States. DJT was simply the first and mildest of pushbacks against the Left's murderous thirst for power. There will be much stronger pushback in the future. It will be ugly but pain and fear are all communists and Muslims understand and submit to.
It is exactly this sort of liberal thinking and tendency to equivocate everything and everyone that has landed Israel in this situation in the first place. Instead of a clear eyed understanding that if they are to survive, enough Arabs must die to make them stop wanting to eradicate the Jews and Israel. That is the ONLY WAY!!! It is how we defeated Germany and Japan. We bombed them until they said, "no mas". It is precisely why we have NOT won in any conflict since in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. We no longer have the cultural confidence to impose our will on bad actors. What results is the world we now live in.
If Israel is to survive, it MUST eliminate Hamas. Kill EVERY member of Hamas and then ship the rest to the West Bank and let Fatah sort them out, as there is zero love lost between Fatah, which has kind of sort of made it's peace with Israel (but not really but that is a discussion for another day), and Hamas.
This is no time for mushy, soft headed thinking. Imagine that you come home from work and find a bad man attempting to rape your wife and daughters and he has already killed two of your son's. Are you going to search for your "inner Nazi" or are you going to pull out your conceal carry weapon and send that animal to meet his maker and then straight to hell. I know what I will do.
The time for self-flection should occur in high school and college, where one is presented with history, literature, religious instruction and so on to help one to form a solid world view. For most folks, this happens by the time they are 25. Unfortunately, our higher education system has become simply a powerful tool of the Left to indoctrinate young people with lies. Additionally, we have extended adolescence well into most people's 40's and by then they have been so thoroughly brain washed they believe nonsense like men can give birth and the planet is more important than a human being, to name just two examples from a list of seemingly infinite choices.
If you can't distinguish between the Gazans, whose mothers proudly proclaim, "We hate Jews more than we love our own children", and Israel and the Jews, who have suffered for decades at the hands of death cultists who worship a false god called, Allah, then you aren't open minded and tolerant. No, you have lost the ability to think rationally. Keep in mind, in the face of all the evil and destruction that has been done to Israel by Hamas, the IDF still goes out of their way to avoid killing and injuring "innocents" (they aren't but you get the idea). And that comes at a cost of Israeli lives. Would you be willing to send your son to serve in IDF under those circumstances? I am not sure either.
Bottom line? There is good and evil in this world. We all better be able to tell the difference.
BTW, the use of the second person in this response is not necessarily intended for Mr. Brownstein.
Please pray for Israel and the IDF and for its leaders to have wisdom, resolve and courage in this existential fight. And consider sending some $$$ to a charity that is supporting Israeli's and members of the IDF.
CORRECTION!
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is NOT a Muslim "reformer". She is an avowed atheist who has rightly rejected Islam as a death and personality cult dedicated to Mohammed.
Well said.
I reread the piece to make sure that my first comment wasn't too harsh (it wasn't harsh enough!) and I came up with a couple of additional, brief points.
First, anyone that has read just a modicum of history and is a elementary student of human nature, or has simply read the Old Testament, particularly, Genesis, knows that the statement, "Few reading this essay are capable of heinous crimes" is not only wrong but either hopelessly naïve or a blind ideologue, or probably both. Time and time again, normal people, placed in the right circumstances, are capable of all sorts of evil to their fellow man. Better yet, check out "The Stanford Prison" experiment. You will have to look it up yourself, as it appears that Substack doesn't allow for links in the comments. I can't believe the author of this piece isn't aware of it and many others like it.
Just during WWII, both the Soviets and the Germans (not even Nazis) committed some of the most heinous war crimes imaginable. And please understand, these were not front line shock troops committing these atrocities. Nope, these were men called up from the reserves to handle "mop up" duty. Meaning lawyers, accountants, bakers, mechanics and so on. Just everyday men who before the onset of the war, were just middle class and lower class family men from Germany. And that duty included, among other tasks, the ahem, elimination of civilians left in the wake of conquest, Hell, even Allied troop in Europe, and Yanks in the Pacific did things never before heard of in response to gross violations by the Japs and Nazis of the Geneva Convention. And most of them say they would do it again without a second's hesitation.
Next, "the brotherhood of man" bullshit. Not only do I not want to be "brothers" with someone who has sworn to his god to kill me and rape my wife and daughters, it isn't possible. And why, for pete's sake would any sane individual want that relationship? I tell you why. The don't. That sort of talk is simply soothing virtue signaling for those who don't want to face realities of life and the evil that is everywhere on this earth.
Here is another doozy. "And philosophies at odds with Reality only die when more people are willing to align themselves with Reality." Um, sorry no, that's no how this works. The only way "philosophies at odds with reality die", particularly if that philosophy includes the murder of other, innocent folks, is to kill as many adherents to that EVIL philosophy as necessary to get the rest of them to give it up. F***, not be insulting here, you seem like a nice guy but...woe, the level of naïve ignorance on display here is gigantic.
Here is another, spoken by the son of the founder of Hamas “As long as we continue to search for enemies anywhere but inside ourselves, there will always be a Middle East problem.” Wrong again. Nope, the search for enemies for Israel is in Gaza, the West Bank, and most of the rest of the Arab and Muslim world and on the Left in Europe and America. Cuz while the Jews are searching within themselves for that enemy, those Gazans and other Muslims will be busy killing Jews. As an aside, has Mr. Brownstein never heard of he Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya? It might explain where this seemingly reasonable young man is coming from.
Onto the comments of Dr. Egger. While she was searching her heart for her own "inner Nazi", what did she do to help that hateful young man learn not to hate?
Part of the problem with folks who have left God out of the equation of life, is that they judge intentions rather than actions. The bible teaches us that it is actions for which we are judged by God and others.
Here are two great examples from history of actions meaning more than words and intentions. Both Harry S Truman and Richard M. Nixon had notorious reputations as anti-Semites. Both used all sorts of bigoted and ugly language about the Jews and their "greedy bankers" and so on and so forth. But, BUT, when the chips were down for Israel's absolute survival, both of these men, going against the advice of their own cabinets and the State Department took steps to assure Israel's very life. Truman by making the US the first country to officially recognize the new nation of Israel and Nixon when he authorized shipments of ammo and armaments after Israel was nearly pushed into the sea at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War.
Mark, I will reply to both of your comments in one reply.
First, thank you for taking the time to add your valuable perspective.
I don't agree with all of your points but they are food for thought.
Best to resist the temptation to name call. I just wrote this essay on Tuesday: https://mindsetshifts.substack.com/p/why-civilization-is-at-stake.
I have a public record of too numerous to list essays about the horrors of Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. Many of those essays cover the problem that you mention that ordinary people may not resist the herd and will be obedient to authority. So dismiss this essay if you want but don't tell me I don't understand reality.
I stated clearly that my essay was not a guide to policy. It was intended as a useful pointer about a simple choice we can make in everyday encounters that may make our corner of the world a bit brighter. Nothing in the essay suggests that I won't use force against a violent criminal.