From Cultural Appropriation To Using Us As Props

Jewish people of African descent have been in the United States just as long as Jewish people of European descent. Both communities have deep roots with cultural practices and beliefs shared across racial distinctions between them. However both have different experiences when talking about antisemitism and the appropriation of their culture and identity by racial extremists and Christians masquerading as Jews. We also have different ways of identifying and different words used for doing so. This last point is where the rise of black nationalists coopting the identity of Jews of color comes in.

“Hebrew Israelites”

Cultural Appropriation To Get Closer To God

There are authentically Jewish communities across the United States which happen to be Jews of color which identify as Hebrews and/or Israelites. These communities are Jewish in the same way non-Jews view European Jews as being Jewish. Their connection to our shared heritage, ancestry and religion should never be diminished nor should they face discrimination on the basis of their skin color. When others claim to support Jews and fight antisemitism, these communities must also be included in the discussion and the challenges and oppression they face must be addressed – regardless of how uncomfortable that might be for anyone else.

Then there are the racists who have continued to appropriate the identity of African-American Jews by attempting to redefine what being Jewish means so that it includes them and excludes all the diverse communities of Jews around the world who don’t fit their prejudiced views. These imposters take portions of Judaism and Jewish culture and blend it with cultures completely alien to Jewish tradition (of any background). The other cultures they exploit range from indigenous and tribal cultures across the globe which happen to be people of color and a skin tone they approve of. Some take the identity of Aetas in the Philippines and mischaracterize the indigenous group as a fabled “lost tribe" so that they can claim ancient origins while ignoring the entirety of Aeta culture and history. Others point to random black communities in China to once again exploit and mischaracterize the histories of these peoples to the benefit of the exploiters. This behavior is seen in regards to Judaism by how these groups also fail to even learn Hebrew before calling themselves “Hebrews", instead mixing languages to come up with gibberish sounding like “ancient Hebrew" they claim to have rediscovered. The complete disregard for the cultures they are appropriating comes from the fact that the intent behind this behavior is that of seeking a sense of superiority to others. There is no need to study the people you are attempting to dispossess of their identity when you already view them as subhuman. A view clearly seen in their frequently violent street preaching attacks.

Jewish identity among Christian extremists is viewed as a way to get higher up the ladder and closer to an imagined god. It elevates the extremists, if only in their own eyes, above others by claiming to be “God’s Chosen  People” (a phrase that is often the source of debates among actual Jews anyway). For black nationalists like the Black Hebrew Israelites groups this also helps elevate their cult above others on the basis of race in addition to religion. By appropriating Jewish identity they view themselves as superior to whites, all Christians and Muslims, and Jewish people not of their select skin color. It is an attempt to assign power to themselves and enhance their self worth. The racism within it is fed by the belief that this one act of cultural theft will give them power over others either in this life or the one they imagine comes next. 

Violence within the movement is a natural outcome of the movement’s own preaching. Adherents can no more be expected to remain peaceful indefinitely in the Black Hebrew Israelites movement than can be expected from the Atomwaffen Division members. When the underlying message of the movement carries the belief that other human beings are evil incarnate and that evil must be fought against, at some point blood will be spilled. And even if the violence does not materialize in physical aggression from every member, passive aggression and tacit support of all active members enables it. Members of hate groups are never innocent of the crimes they helped create. Simply belonging to the group is an act of enabling it and does carry some guilt with it. When a member or an attacker inspired by the group carries out an attack like that in Jersey, the entire group deserves no protection from condemnation and its leaders must face accountability for the crimes they have encouraged. However doing this means once again segregating the hate groups, the imposters who appropriate Jewish identity and culture for their own gain, from the actual Jewish communities of color. Something some white Jews are having a hard time doing.

Hate Preachers 

Farrakhan Spent 2019 Spreading Hate Speech

Islam, like Christianity, has a less than peaceful history with Judaism. The fact that it claims to have branched off, and this is the nicest way it can be worded, from Judaism so as to use the connection to extend its existence beyond its prophet has lent to much of that hostility, arising from both Jews and Muslims alike. Nobody ever likes being used as a prop in somebody else’s story. And at times there are those who grow tired of keeping the token around. These hate preachers decide that the prop has outlived its usefulness and instead need replaced by the faithful of their own religion. While the Islamic prophet frequently preached of tolerance towards “the people of the book", men like Louis Farrakhan preach that “the Synagogue of Satan" (borrowed from Christian antisemites) need destroyed. 

Farrakhan has often been shielded by liberals because the man has worked his way into the establishment. His ability to use incredibly violent hate speech towards Jewish communities while being protected by liberal celebrities and politicians (such as when he called Jews “cockroaches" only to be protected by members of The Women’s March in 2019) has shown followers that hatred of American Jews has a certain threshold of acceptability among leftists. As long as the group is willing to be used by leftists, there is no limit to the amount of abuse they can heap upon minorities not willing to be used as props. This is the same behavior you see among minorities who seek out rightwing fame knowing full well that doing so could encourage violence against members of their own community. Tokenism has its perks for those willing to play the role for either side. Farrakhan knew this all along and has exploited it for his own gain. Now he operates with impunity as the establishment seems willing to take whatever pushback comes with his constant incitement of violence against American Jews. 

The consequences of allowing men like Farrakhan to obtain and exploit the platforms they have is the generational divides between communities that they create. When Farrakhan and his followers push conspiracy theories and hate speech towards Jewish communities they make it increasingly hard for communities to come together and work towards common goals. This divide has been exploited by Trump’s regime as the rightwing portion of American Jews use it to exploit tensions and pull moderates to their side. Christian extremists use it as justification to play the saviors they see themselves as while pushing policies that harm both people of color and Jewish communities as well. Yet there has been no significant call to ostracize Farrakhan and his cult. Instead his protectors have spent all of last year circling the wagons and pretending that Farrakhan is being used as a scapegoat. Without holding hate preachers, regardless of color or religion, accountable the left shows that they are just as willing to exploit minorities as the Republicans are.

*

The recent attacks and street preaching incidents raise the stakes in deciding how to isolate the extremists and unify Jewish communities in the face of such parasitic hate groups. It also brings up the issue of racism and how Jewish communities should react. Yet for all these questions there is one clear statement to be made: it is not the place of non-Jewish communities to dictate to us how we should answer any of these. It will also mean that white Jewish communities need sit down and allow Jewish communities of color to speak out about how these attacks affect them, as they experience this in ways we do not. This is a subject in which many of us who are used to speaking will have to shut up and listen instead. Any account of how these issues are faced by Jewish people of color will require anyone reading this to find and listen to somebody from the community as this blog does not and cannot speak for them.

Antisemitism and Our Fake Friends

Thoughts...

What is antisemitism? Any post about this topic seems to need that defined since so many people seem unaware of what actually is antisemitic and how often they tolerate, even condone, antisemitism in daily discourse and their daily lives.

Antisemitism for the sake of this post is defined by the prejudiced views of Jewish identity, Judaism as a faith and cultural aspects of Jewish communities around the world. This includes, but is not limited to, the clear hatred of any and all three aspects listed above and expressions of that hatred both verbally and physically. It entails the applied prejudices of what you expect a Jewish person to be when that view is applied to the detriment of Jewish people. This includes what could be perceived as positive views that, when applied, strip Jewish people of their agency and right to self-determination and the ability to define for ourselves what our identity means. It also includes the appropriation of Jewish identity by people who are not Jewish, regardless of the reasons given. Though all these listed, and those touched on below, are not rigid in definition since intent and context always must be applied to show the harm of the actions/words deemed to be antisemitic.

Now to illustrate some forms of antisemitism…

The Fetishized Jew

A fetish is an inanimate object to which the observer attaches meaning, attributes and meaning which otherwise do not exist without the application of the observer's views. When an entire people are turned into a fetishized object for the sake of another group it should be clear how this is detrimental to the targeted community. It can be argued that Islam and Christianity do this to Jews in the many interpretations of the two religions. The need to “branch out" from Judaism to add credibility and a sense of antiquity to the newer Abrahamic faiths has meant pigeonholing Jews into characters meant to play a secondary role to their prophets/messiahs and the adherents of the newer faiths. Jewish resentment for this behavior is then ignored or, historically speaking, punished. The roles cast for Jews in the two faiths also are less than favorable and, from the view of the fetish, insulting and dehumanizing. It should be clear to anyone that this behavior creates divisions that cannot be ignored indefinitely. Especially when those perpetrating this behavior have so often found themselves in the majority and therefore without any compulsion to stop it, let alone apologize for it.

Fetishized views of Jewish people also appear in secular culture when the “good Jew" image is applied in how society dictates what Jewish people should say, think, look like and what views we should support or oppose. The fetish is not permitted to actually live as an individual but rather expected to conform to the prejudices of the observer. Individuality is prohibited through the constant application of negative responses to it and latter enforced by outright abuse. The latest example of this is the politicized charges of antisemitism against Bernie Sanders simply because he does not fit the “good Jew" image a sizable portion of society holds.

When applied to the Orthodox Jewish community the fetishized view of them becomes even more abusive in that this time the fetish exist only as an outlet for the aggression of the observer. They can neither achieve the status of a “good Jew" or strive for acceptability once fetishized in America since the prejudices against them have no favorable application. So once applied these prejudices serve to isolate the community and enforce their segregation via the application of the observer’s prejudices and thus abuse follows. Then when the targeted community complies, the prejudices become more hostile and abuse becomes even more aggressive. This is an example of how the stripping of our humanity and replacing it with prejudiced views of what we should be often manifests and is experienced differently given other aspects of our identity. Orthodox Jews experience antisemitism differently than reform Jewish communities in the same way Jewish people of color experience antisemitism differently. Each of our diverse communities therefore experience this form of antisemitism differently.

The Evangelicals and Their Savior Complex

The image of solidarity in America is frequently portrayed far differently than it is applied in real action. After every antisemitic attack there are always Christian leaders who rush to express their undying support for us poor downtrodden Jews. It is a mad rush to speak over Jewish anger so that the images of Orthodox Jews praying can be seen in new articles and TV broadcasts as Christians talk for us. Instead of lifting up Jewish views of what drove the latest attacks on us, people like Donald Trump decide to shed some crocodile tears before thumping their chests and talking about how much they love Israel. Our blood is cheap in the eyes of those who spend their time chasing ambulances to the next synagogue massacre. 

We are not lambs to be sacrificed for the gains of Christian leaders or politicians of any party. Your support of Israel means nothing when you stand atop the graves of Jewish Americans just to shout out praise for Tel Aviv. This form of antisemitism not only cheapens the value of our lives but also places a bulls eye on our backs as you pretend to grieve. We are Americans and yet the fetish mentioned above is one that assigns us loyalty to a country to which we do not belong. It excludes us from American society while pretending to protect us. 

Solidarity is only ever achievable if both parties can shoulder the burden equally. This is impossible when the burden is applied by the Evangelical leadership in America. When your view of us hinges on stories in which we are vilified in one verse than turned to saints the next only to end with our ultimate destruction by fire, chances are you can never shoulder the burden of antisemitism but rather are a source of it. But the failure to address antisemitic passages in the Christian bible isn’t the only problem here. The overwhelming sense of needing to rush in and save us is just as damaging. 

It is impossible to pick apart the depths of antisemitic views held by large portions of Evangelicals in America. That alone could be saved for another post. But I will say this: the belief that “standing with Israel" after each attack on Jews in America is antisemitic. American Jews are not represented by some foreign government. Playing savior to us will not bring you closer to any god. When this is the motive for denouncing attacks, you can skip it. It is obvious that there is no sincerity in it. And the motive behind it is insulting, not loving.

The “Hebrew Israelites" and Other Fakes

I will address the appropriation of Jewish identity by non-Jews in the same way one would when talking about white people appropriating cultures they have historically colonized: Do not do it. It is really that simple. You can enjoy bagels, attend a Hanukkah celebration and not try to pretend to be Jewish. But really if those are the ways you are doing it then you are still not as monstrous as the next lot…

Black Hebrew Israelites and other versions of this cultish crowd are all antisemitic. All forms are potentially violent as well, regardless of what their apologists claim. There is no expression of their beliefs in which the adherent is not guided towards violent dispossession of Jewish identity from actual Jewish peoples. Their beliefs also rob actual Jewish people of color of their heritage, culture and identities by stripping them of their identity and applying it to Christians of color who fetishize Judaism. Not only do these groups not understand Hebrew or Jewish customs and culture, they refuse to admit the extent of Jewish diversity. Diversity that includes Jewish communities of Asian, Hispanic, European, African and Middle Eastern ancestry. With that in mind it is impossible to not label these groups as equally antisemitic as white nationalists movements that also target Jewish peoples with violent hate speech and dehumanizing characterizations. 

.

These posts will continue as I have time to put them together. Like I have said above, antisemitism is difficult to define and there will be plenty of people who don’t like or agree with how I have used it. But it is important that society takes a long hard look at what forms of antisemitism exists and are expressed in both the mainstream and in the shadows alike. 

Patriotism As A Drug

The Addict:

It is part of human nature to want to belong, to be accepted, and even to have a purpose. We long for this from birth and strive for it even at an early age. Those desires lead us to seek out friends, join social activities were we believe we will find it and to work hard to gain acceptance from our peers. It is baked in to every culture and every society the world over. It can especially be seen in the rabid nationalism of our times.

Nationalism is a manifestation of our inherent need to belong. It gives us a community to which, we assume, we cannot be removed and will be accepted within. It fills that need we have as human beings. But it comes at a cost. Nationalism requires us to define the group in such a way that distinctions between who 'belongs' and who is presumed to not belong must be made. It is exclusionary and tribalistic. And in many cases, nationalism when defined by race and ethnicity, is flatout racist.

But nationalism works because it comes with a drug. It comes with the addition of patriotism. And patriotism is meant to make those who believe they belong in the group feel good about having gained that acceptance they crave. It fills the desire for a purpose as well since it becomes a necessity that must be maintained rather than a happy little byproduct of nationalistic fervor. It imposes upon the "patriot" a demand to show it, to exhibit it arrogantly, and to further exclude those who alledgedly don't belong.

As society rachets up nationalistic rhetoric the demand for obscene displays of patriotism goes up. To continue belonging to the crowd, the user has to up their dosage. In doing so, the user becomes less likely to focus on other issues, no matter how important they might seem, and begins to reject aspects of their daily life that contradict their ever growing desire to fit in with the crowd of their choosing. The rhetoric gets amped up again, the user repeats the cycle and focuses more and more on being a 'patriot'. No matter how detestable, or despicable even, the image of patriot becomes, that desire to belong remains and the drug they have found helps them feel accepted. The high is worth all the downright vile things that comes with it.

The Dealer:

Our world currently has a host of strongmen and neo-fascists who are more than willing to sell their poison in a nice easy to swallow form. People like Trump are more than aware that the target of their rhetoric have already dabbled in it before and can easily be baited with just the right pitch. It is the hook that only needs to be set.

The "us vs them" narrative is an age old part of populist rhetoric. It is used to make the distinctions between those who belong and those the dealer wants removed. It works because those who think they are the in-crowd feel accepted by the message as well as having found a purpose within it. It bestows on them a sense of pride, a sense of selfworth that might have been otherwise missing, and a sense of superiority. All they have to do is maintain their place in the exclusive circle that their prejudices have carved out for them. And this is where the drug comes in.

Patriotism can be used as both a sedative and a stimulant... given you know how to use it. Dealers like Trump know how. And as was seen in his latest klan meeting, with the chants calling for an 'outsider' to be "sent back", it is clear how the stimulant portion works. This aspect of it just requires massive doses of patriotism, such as rallies. That creating of spaces where the dealer's targets can feed off each other's energy, creating a desire to one up the other, is exactly how Trump targets his cultish klan with the drug of their choosing.

For those not willing to attend Trump's narcissistic orgy fest, the sedative part comes through passive partaking of patriotism. That sparklers and cookouts on the Fourth sort of addiction to it. It is a form of patriotism that allows the user to pretend the group they belong to is fine, perhaps some rough patches here and there, but otherwise ok. It permits a placid acceptance of evident wrongs in society while still allowing the user to feel pride in belonging to it. It silences the people who are often the same ones repeating lines like "all evil needs to succeed is the silence of good men".

This will not be the part where I tell you something like "but wait, there is still a good form of a patriot". There simply is not. And frankly the world would be a far better place with far fewer patriots.

The problem with believing you can be patriotic while still dissenting from the notion that some people belong and others should be in cages is that patriotism is derived from nationalism. Nationalism is nothing more than our way of deciding who belong where. Therefore there can be no real reason that a patriot is any better simply because they might be more tolerant than the outright racists currently leading many of our countries.

We Don't Need Saviors

We Don't Need Saviors

The American rightwing has frequently come to the defense of Jews after repeated shootings in American synagogues. The Evangelical conservatives see it as a part of their sacred duty to stand by Jewish people right up until the return of Jesus. And it is that savior complex, with all its opportunistic tendencies, that drives the conservative side of the debate on what is and what isn't antisemitic.

So what is antisemitism and what is not antisemitic? That question is very complex and yet can be readily answered in a way that keeps the conversation within guardrails. Antisemitism is the professed hatred, mistrust of Jewish people. It manifest in conspiracy theories of Jewish people holding disproportionate power, influence within society as well as darker myths of Jewish people conspiring for domination of the destruction of select other groups of people. It can also be as passive as any other form of racial discrimination in which assigned characteristics that are meant to otherize Jews and deem Jewish people as untrustworthy or unworthy of being considered equals. These are straightforward ways to define antisemitism that can, when reasonably applied to daily life, help Americans identify when somebody is displaying antisemitism. But even then this does not weed out the more insidious ways in which antisemitism has been baked into American society, as well as much of European and Middle Eastern societies, with influences ranging from religion to cultural differences. 

In America the discussion on antisemitism is often far less concerned with the wellbeing of Jewish people as individuals, which runs counter to the American culture of individualism, but rather often aims to collectivize Jewish people in a manner that makes Jews easy to pigeonhole. This lends itself to more nefarious forms of antisemitism. The stripping of a Jewish person's individual identity and affixing a perceived view of Israel, for better or worse, is antisemitic. And this is where the savior complex mentioned above comes into play. 

When Meghan McCain, with whatever good intentions she believes she might have, stands atop Jewish peoples' shoulders and speaks over us as she "defends" us - this is that savior complex. She routinely replaces our identity as American Jews with that of being members of a collective that is identified only by Israel. Israel being a nation means that it has citizens of its own, some of which happen to be Jewish, and obviously as American Jews, we are not part of it. But the Christian view that all Jews must be part of Israel, especially when approaching that final book, has been driven deep into the Christian American mindset. It forms a barrier that keeps American Jews from fully being part of American society and absolute equals in every single way that Christian Americans naturally see themselves as. It denies the same level of participation in the conversation by American Jews by leaning heavily on the notion that at some level we can't be as dedicated to the country we belong to because of the insinuation that we are also loyal to a country we do not belong to. The duel loyalty trope is ironically one that McCain has accused Rep. Omar of making, yet this savior complex that McCain so often engages in is founded on the belief that we, as Jews, do not truly belong to America.

While Christians in America have plenty other antisemitic stumbling blocks to work past, such as the routine deicide charges, the savior complex that conservative Christians so often exhibit is one that needs addressed. American Jews need true allies and support during times like these, as attacks on our communities increase in frequency and levels of violence. But we don't need saved. We don't need to be looked at as an opportunity to get on that pro-Israel Evangelical soapbox. We need people to simply recognize that antisemitism has deep roots in America and the only way to stop these attacks is to address each and every spring from which these roots are fed. It should be seen as the sacred duty of anyone who believes in Jesus to look at themselves, at their own communities first and reflect on how they themselves might very well be contributing to the hatred of any other people, be it Jews or immigrants or Muslims. 

Several of the following posts will be addressing antisemitism and how it works. These will discuss what distinctions should be made between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, why Ilhan Omar is not the antisemitic hate preacher the Republicans are casting her as and the need for all extremists who peddle antisemitic views to be taken on without relent.

White Supremacy And American Apathy

With a record number of hate groups in the United States, at 1,020 as of January, showing no signs of slowing down in their continual spread across America, the United States has a problem with hate. To be more specific, the United States has a problem with white supremacists and the hate groups that feed the white power movement in America. It is a problem that has spread across Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and over Canada and America as well. It is an international threat that the United States government is willfully turning a blind eye to. And in doing so, the Trump administration is creating a breeding ground for terrorists that can strike, and have, anywhere around the world at any time.

The Islamic State showed the West that terrorists can effectively exploit social media to incite and organize terror attacks around the world. World leaders and tech companies all rallied around calls to strip the ISIS accounts of their online platforms and limit the flow of propaganda and information sent out by the well organized terror group. Anonymous and Western countries found themselves working towards the same cause for a change. It has proven effective in countering the weaponizing of social media and online formats. But when it comes to white power terrorism, when it comes to a terrorist threat that has its origins in the West, suddenly those efforts are extremely limited to a few key players (such as Germany's government for example) while major ones (such as America) refuse to bring that same tenacity to the fight against white supremacist terror groups. 

The inaction by the United States has led to a *30% increase in hate crimes against people of color, Muslims, Jews and other minority groups in the United States (*according to the FBI, measured over a three year time span ending in Dec. of 2017). In 2018 the hate crime rate rose by an additional *10% in the United States 30 largest cities, showing a continued upward trend (*FBI statistics for 2018). White supremacists showed the most desire to take normally non-deadly hate crimes to the next level in 2018 by killing *40 people in the United States and Canada, up from 17 people killed by white supremacists in 2017 (*Southern Poverty Law Center stats for 2018). Making the threat of being killed by a white supremacist far more likely in the United States than being killed by any other terrorist threat. 

It is hard to imagine any other terrorist threat being allowed the room and comfort to operate within the United States, let alone abroad, and to claim lives each and every year, without serious and aggressive action being taken by the United States federal government. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have launched drone strikes, bombing runs, invasions and endless wars in the name of 'national security'. Countless war crimes have been committed in by the United States, in the name of each and every American, because Americans felt threatened by terrorism coming from abroad. Yet even hinting that white supremacists should be shutdown/deplatformed is taboo in America. We can't even hold an honest discussion about the threat to American lives because white power, a clear and present danger, is held in such regard, and shielded by exaggerated interpretations of the constitution, that one can only come to the conclusion that white supremacy is a sacred cow that America isn't willing to do away with.

For years now the country has been asked to at least take an honest look at the inequalities within the system that offer white supremacists support in their desire to retain influence as well as social and political power. The discussion gets side-railed by many things, ranging from a history of refusal to adequately address racism to outright denial of racism itself, but most often is shutdown by white supremacist spreading fear among white Americans that somehow any steps to address racism would make white people second class citizens. An outright lie. A lie that illustrates how the movement uses fear to fuel hate, hate to create fear and that entire cycle itself to create attacks on minorities.

This refusal to address racism, and bigotry of all forms, when talking about white Americans has only been exploited by politicians who, like Trump, often share the views that white supremacist hate groups thrive on. Which is exactly how America ended up with a White House riddled with white supremacists. The system starts at the ground level and rises from there. Trump's hate is not an anomaly - it is the direct result, and the most logical conclusion, of America's white supremacist roots. 

Until the United States can be forced to truly address the issue, that being the inequality of its systems and society, white supremacist terrorism will proliferate. More lives will be lost and more "thought and prayers" will be offered over the graves of people that should have never had to die due to American indifference. The power structure, as it is today, favors the hate that America claims doesn't define it. 

What Is Human Trafficking

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Bleed Black

The Soulless, The Coward
(The Lost Souls series)

Alder's Ledge supports the religious rights of all groups and peoples. We believe that it is the right of every individual regardless of where they live or what they believe to exercise their religious beliefs freely and openly. It is for that reason we have decided to highlight the most depraved of individuals that would attempt to undermine this freedom for others while pushing their own religious beliefs in such a distasteful and hostile manner. In coming portion of this series we will highlight discrimination against Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and even Atheists (whom we believe have the same rights to not be religious as those who decided to practice a faith of their own).

It took an anti-Semitic Muslim twit to introduce me to the most obnoxiously hateful bastard this blog has had the opportunity to research. This certifiable lunatic not only looks like a rabid ideologue wearing a throwback costume to the Knights Templar, but has views not so far off from those espoused in Europe's dark ages. The only difference here is that during those ages the rise of Islam took some of the heat off Judaism as Christendom suddenly found a new competitor to bash their weapons against. Now however, the radical fringe of Islam finds it entertaining to push the radical views of cowards like "Brother Nathanael" and his mildly entertaining "foundation".

In our modern age of so called enlightenment this combination of religious fervency and blind hatred is troubling to say the least. In rambling speeches and YouTube videos the fanatical Nathanael manages to collectively blame Judaism (as a singular entity) for everything from the Sandy Hook school shooting to Boston Marathon bombing. Of course these are just two examples of this sick individual hitching his cart to tragedies so as to profiteer off innocent blood. In other examples of his blind hatred for Jews and Judaism Nathanael goes as far as to accuse every Jew for their part in allegedly "stealing Christmas". Proving that there truly is no depth to which perverse ideologues like this man willing to sink to manipulate the opinions of others.

Stopping Short Of Pogroms 

For the most part Nathanael manages to stop his ranting just short of telling the viewer to go grab a gun and shoot up the local synagogue. In most of his ramblings the main threats come from pushing for legal oppression of Judaism in an attempt to force Americans to accept the United States as a "Christian nation again". *Note that Nathanael attaches the word again so as to emphasize his point that America was at some point a religious state dominated and run by the church.

However where there is legal action taken to oppress any minority, regardless of religion, there often follows the physical persecution of the targeted portion of society. It was for this reason that our founding fathers first decided to separate the church from the state and the state from the church. It was clear that if the religious freedoms of all citizens were to be protected that the country must not endorse or push the religious views of any one group over that of another. This was one of the very reasons the initial citizens of Europe had left their homelands in the first place. Yet it is the very thing that Nathanael and his foundation strive to instate through there religious fervor. 

This is made rather clear in The Brother Nathanael Foundation's website:

From the "Vision" statement- 

(capitalization not added by us, bold highlights however are)

"We will DEMAND equal time and MORE for Christian symbols in the public square and support Christian institutions dedicated to the advancement of a Christian society."

 "We will start an education program to bring WHOLESOME sexual ideology to Public School Students."

"We will expose the Zionist State of Israel as an Anti-Christ state due to its denial that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah."

Lets ignore the fact that Nathanael's organization uses the overtly anti-Semitic slogan of calling Israel collectively "Zionist" and thus indicting all Jews within it's borders of being such. Lets ignore that there is no room in his arguments for making a distinction between radical Jews and the rest of us. Lets ignore the fact that many of Nathanael's writings and speeches carry exerts from Mein Kampf and other well known hate saturated doctrines. Lets just focus on the more sadistic characteristics of Nathanael's "evangelism". 

"DEMAND... MORE for Christian symbols"

When was the last time you got to see an Ramadan service held publicly at the White House? Oh that is right, Obama just recently held on a White House Ramadan Iftar dinner on July 25th, 2013. Yet Judaism is supposed to be in complete control of the White House according to radicals like Nathanael. So obviously this was just a ploy, right? Yet this was President Obama's fifth Iftar meal and celebration at the White House.

But President Obama is a liberal president and thus a Jewish "goy", right? I mean that is what Nathanael's organization would like the world to believe. He has spent countless hours preparing videos in which he compares Democratic politicians as "Zionists' goys" being held captive to a global Jewish plot to take over the "world's leading superpower". So perhaps only liberal Jewish pawns allow Islam to take center stage regardless of Ramadan falling relatively close to the Jewish Three Weeks of fasting? 

But to believe this we would have to overlook President George W. Bush's eight consecutive Ramadan Iftar services during his presidency. And we would have to go back to President Clinton to find the first celebrations of Ramadan and the holding of Iftar meals at the White House. Yet of course if we are to listen to Nathanael these are new ploys by the Jewish conspiracy to further push Islam through a president (Obama) who has done more to harm America's relations with the Middle East than any other president (sadly, even Bush). 

Yet the Iftar meals and other Muslim celebrations held at the White House are only the starting point for Nathanael's campaign to force Christianity upon the rest of America through the executive branch. Besides demanding that the White House put up and maintain a nativity scene throughout the month of December, Nathanael's foundation demands that the Chanukah menorah be banned. Thus showing that Nathanael isn't really all that worried about other religions having their time in the public square but rather just wants Judaism banned from public view. 

This rather rabid approach to attacking what, if Nathanael was truly Jewish from birth, he should realize is a minor Jewish holy festival is just the starting point. From this jumping off point fanatics like Nathanael leap into pushing for restrictions on openly celebrating Passover (Pesach) and Yom Kippur. The real target in these perverse attacks is the ultimate denial of religious observances in any manner that might offend the fringe elements of Christendom.

And since it is impossible to exist without offending somebody, somewhere, it is impossible to celebrate any of these holy days at any time. Pesach is the mark on the calender with which Christians use to identify when Easter arrives each year. Yet the push for "MORE" Christian symbols in the public square while limiting Jewish symbols would mean that Pesach would basically have to be banned all together. 

Now I, as a conservative Jew, don't much care for the parts of Pesach which the rest of society gets to see in public (i.e. the grocery store). Matzo is one of the worst pieces of bread ever made... which makes it's name fitting. And yet if radicals like this are allowed any real respect in public thinking then the matzo would have to be done away with so the Easter Bunny can have it's place in the public square. For all public facilities are an extension of the public square and therefore symbols of a religion in those facilities are just as offensive as if they were placed upon the White House lawn. 

"WHOLESOME sexual ideology"

This one statement in his "vision statement" isn't Nathanael's first time indicating that Judaism in the reason for homosexuality across the world. This is a running theme in Nathanael's preaching as he pushes a homophobic ideology onto a modern society. It doesn't take long listening to Nathanael to realize that this ideologue truly believes that homosexuals are Satan's spawn and thus products of "the Jews". 

Once again it is hard to incorporate the traditional beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam with those of a modern, tolerant, and open society. The reality of living in a day and age where all people are to be accepted as they are rather than what a given religion would dictate for them has evaded Nathanael and his organization. Where members of all three Abrahamic faiths have found it within themselves to accept others the members of this hate group reject homosexuals outright. Instead of acceptance and the "love of Christ", homosexuals can only expect vile bigotry from Nathanael and his followers. 

This is only made more bizarre by Nathanael's belief that his narrow minded hate speech should be standard reading for our children in public schools. So much so that Nathanael's organization has drafted curriculum teaching "orthodox" Christian doctrine as fact instead of scientific reality that homosexuality occurs naturally. Thus attempting to force one religion's views upon the youngest citizens of our country through a state funded system (in direct violation of "separation of church and state"). 

Fortunately the "foundation" has had no such luck in forcing it's bigoted views upon any public school so far...

Antisemitism And Other Prejudice

Regardless of his main views of "the Jews" as being the main enemies of a Christian nation, Nathanael's hatred is not bound simply to religion. In several videos and throughout his writing Nathanael often expresses a profound hatred for non-whites. He takes this hatred for the "lesser races" by proposing that "white America" is on the brink of becoming extinct. He cites supposed illegal immigration regardless of the immigration process these "lesser races" took to arrive here. He also, of course, blames "the Jews" for this wave of "third world" immigrants.

"America's Multicultural Nightmare" 

- February 2011

"American Jewry's Push For Massive Immigration"

- October 2010

"White Anger Or White Stupor?"

- September 2010

"The End Of White America"

- May 2012

These "third world" immigrants from "non-Christian countries" are a threat in the eyes of radicals like Nathanael. All we have to do is compare his views with those of well known racists like David Duke (also an antisemitic hate monger). By noticing the common enemies these two radical Christian windbags choose we can see who the ultimate source of their hatred really is. Though the "third world" immigrants get to take some of the blame for the supposed downfall of "white America", "the Jews" get the bulk of the alleged guilt. 

Freedom Of Hates Speech

In a civil society we must always learn to tolerate the fringe elements of every given group. However, we must also make a consistent push to isolate these voices and separate ourselves from them. By giving them favorable recognition we allow their views to be seen as somewhat acceptable and even respectable. 

We must make certain that we speak out against these radicals with every chance we are given. We must be relentless in identifying their fallacies whenever and wherever they attempt to push them. By making it clear that these are not opinions that our society at large accepts we make it clear that the liberties of all our citizens are protected from the tyranny they attempt to push. Though we must allow them the opportunity to speak we do not have to give them the chance to be left unchallenged. For with every right there are obligations, and the challenging of hate speech is an obligation that arises with the freedom of speech itself.

We Are All To Blame For Syria

Written by Nanice

The Arab League. The damned Arab League. Where oh where are you? And Jordan and Turkey and Saudi and Qatar and everyone else in the region that should step up. That should have stepped up. Where are you? Why are you waiting for the United States to handle Arab affairs? (In all fairness Jordan and Turkey are bursting at the seams with the refugee crisis.) So why didn't the United States or the European Union get involved earlier as opposed to now? Way before well over 100,000 people have died and now over 3-4 million people are in dire need of humanitarian aid? 

Obama and Cameron condemned atrocities, but sat on their hands and waited. The Arab League condemned atrocities as well, but just sat on their hands. Nowhere to be found. As usual. As always. I can't be disappointed because I am always disappointed. Now chemical weapons have been used so now "we care." The world "cares." The EU "cares." Saudi "cares." France "cares." Israel "cares." The United States "cares." Obama "cares." And so on.

The day Bashar Al- Assad started killing children is when the world, The EU, the Arab League, the US, Obama, Cameron, etc., etc., should have "really cared." They didn't then. They don't now. 

Obama wants to save face and make Americans think he's doing the right thing by going to Congress. What happens if they say no? No to intervention? Will he over ride them anyway? What is his motive NOW vs. 2 years ago? And why does the US get tell the other Arab countries what to do? 

I'm not for US involvement, but I'll be damned if it happens in my name and makes the situation worse. I won't blame the US or EU fully. I will blame the Arab League, KSA, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Russia, China and Iran. I will blame everyone but not the US wholly. Why? Because the US does nothing that doesn't protect or benefit Israel. You know this. You should know this. If you don't, you know now.

And all you "Hands off Syria" people, what is your solution? "Hands off!" "Hands off!" Then what? What happens next? No plan huh? No. No plan. Just keep hands off Syria so things stay the same. All I can say now is, SORRY. Sorry children of Syria because all we can say is "Hands Off Syria!" And we can say we need intervention now, and those are short term, easy out solutions that make us feel better. But we do not project. We cannot think. We have nothing else in place for your future. We have no long term solution for you. So you will continue to die and for that I'm so very sorry.

And all you who urge me to call Congress to vote yes or no on strikes? I've been calling Congress. I've called them to ask what their plan is either way. I've called Congress to ask them what their long term goals are for Syria should they vote yes. I've called Congress to ask them what they will do if Assad is weakened and opposition takes over? What Congress will do if Assad strikes back? Or what they will do if he lashes out even harsher on his own people. I've called Congress to ask what if there are more civilian casualties? I've called Congress to say, if you decide not to strike what are your plans now because we've dug our heels in too deep?! What is the next step? What are the next 10 steps? Surely they have a plan? Surely they've thought this out! Surely we all have, haven't we?

I can't be mad and place all blame on countries who I expect to act. I can't be mad at them at all. Not entirely. Countries are run by people, who although have power, they are people just like you and me. They might have the best of intentions, they might have the worst of intentions, but either way there has been no overwhelming flood of public pressure on a world-wide scale to these people in power until now. 

Why? 

Because chemical weapons have been used and now the threat of foreign intervention is real. Very real. So real it now has an affect on us? Now we, you and me, those of us who call ourselves "activists", those who wanted to help but didn't know how, all of us, we, you and me, are frantically trying to help Syrians and ourselves (let's not joke) by either pressuring these powers to intervene or to keep their hands off. Where were we, you and me, and activists and global citizens; those who wanted to help but didn't know how or when? Where were we when the Houla massacre took place? Where were we when it happened in Daraa? When it happened in Hama? In Aleppo? When the refugees reached into the tens of thousands? Then hundreds of thousands? When it reached 1 million? When there was a mass exodus of refugees to Iraq? Iraq for crying out loud! Where were we? We, and you and me, we are to blame. All of us. All of us are to blame because we waited too long. We waited for it to come to this. I am to blame because I sat in the comfort of my own home listening to the screams and cries of Syrians. Men and women and elders and children, all begging for help. I sat in the comfort of my own home while children were butchered, mothers & daughters were raped, while their fathers and husbands were being tortured. I am to blame while I stayed up all night looking through the awful videos and decided to wait.

A Legacy Of Failure

How The World Left Syria To Burn

This post contains opinions that do not reflect the opinions of all of Alder's Ledge's contributors and writers. They are personal in nature and may be considered offensive to some. We suggest that you read this post with an open mind and consider it polite debate rather than an argument or fact.

We watched in Bosnia as the aggressors were rewarded by UN apathy as the blue hats dragged their feet. The tin star blue hats watched as the Serbs sat up their artillery and began to shell civilians. We were so close to the fight that we could watch the snipers pull their bloody triggers. So damn close that we could watch as another mother took her last breath as she fell in sniper alley. Yet we did nothing to stop the sniper in the first place. Instead we made certain that the Bosnian civilians were disarmed and unable to fight back. Thus making the slaughter possible.

The notion of peace through talking died in Bosnia. Over and over the Bosnians watched as their politicians pleaded with the Serbs to end the war. Over and over again they watched as the Serbs took their brothers and fathers off to die in camps the UN knew about from day one. Peace never came to Bosnia through talking to the tyrant. Instead all the Bosnians got from the fight was a legacy of broken promises and failure.

In Syria the peaceful protests were met with aggression unparalleled by modern fascists. Yet the world turned their eyes away as they hoped their beloved "Arab Spring" would pan out elsewhere. Nobody wanted to imagine that a little resistance to the "change" Obama claimed to inspire would end up like it has today. We didn't want to believe that 100,000 lives (and counting) would be lost to the arrogance of a tyrannical regime.

Had we decided to respond then maybe things might have worked out differently. Just perhaps if the world had decided to intervene then maybe more Syrians would be alive today.

When Libya went to hell the world responded by siding with a group of rebels that we deemed to be the lesser of two evils. We didn't have a bloody clue who we were arming or who were helping to kick Gaddafi out of office. But we took our chance to finish off the old persistent pain in Northern Africa. The thorn in the West's paw was finally removed.

Of course there were anti-war isolationists who wanted to defend their position of zero tolerance for war at all (and any) cost. And the one thing they got in the whole mess that was Libya was that UN/US never put "boots on the ground". Even when the rebels began to slaughter black African civilians as they "liberated" Libya from Gaddafi, we never put a blue hat on the ground. Even as the rebels began committing summary executions in retaliation for the times they suffered defeats at Gaddafi's hands, we never put a single boot on Libyan soil. We maintained our support in the air above while ignoring the atrocities happening below.

If the US does in fact decide to send in a few rockets or jets they will most definitely be committing themselves to a longer war than that of Libya. They won't have the option to keep their precious boots off the bloody soil below. What lay ahead for Syria if America gets involved isn't just war... it will be hell on Earth.

Where We Failed

From the very start in Syria's "civil war" we should have noted who the aggressors were and exactly what war crimes they were committing. At that moment it would had been clear to realize that Assad's regime was willingly attacking it's own people. And from that moment the international community should have begun to act. 

But we didn't...

In March of 2011 the first chance we had at breaking Assad's grip on Syria slipped away. With the initial abuses by Syria's security forces the world should had began applying heavy economic pressure upon Syria. The most direct method would had been to freeze the accounts of Syrian leaders and those actively supporting the regime from the outside. Cutting the regime off from it's supply of money would had gained the attention of even the most hardline supporters of the Assad government. 

Yet we didn't...

From the start Assad has been purchasing the weapons he needed to "restore order" from the Russians. Countless reports have shown that Russian arms companies have been the lifeblood for the struggling Syrian leader. Had these companies faced the economic muscle of the outside world they would have found it hard to justify two years of losses while supporting Assad. But since the pressure was never applied upon the arms companies those would be losses have been translated into massive profits. 

Had Russia faced history making sanctions for it's support of Assad's barbarism the world would had been forced to take notice. If either Western Europe or the United States had found their courage and stood up to Putin the world at large would have had to stop and look. What would have looked like the Cold War erupting after a short intermission would have gotten even Assad's attention as he continued to slaughter his own. 

But again, we didn't...

As the fighting grew and refugees began to pour over the border into Turkey the world had the opportunity to document the war from the outside. Had information been extracted from the refugees methodically and published for all the world to see the war in Syria would have been recorded as starting in early 2011. Instead the "internal struggle" in Syria was routinely sidelined as the world media refused to take the matter seriously and label it for what it was. 

In June of 2011 when Assad laid siege to Jisr al-Shughour and 10,000 refugees almost immediately fled to Turkey the world had another chance. Their stories told the world of a military that was readily placing heavy artillery fire squarely upon civilian homes that had no discernible military significance. They were amongst the first ones to testify that Assad's air force was readily strafing city streets and dropping bombs on public buildings. These were the first ones to tell the world that what was happening behind the curtain wasn't war... this was systematic slaughter.

So where was the world? One word... Weiner.

While the United States and the rest of the West should had been pushing for immediate economic and political retaliation against Assad and his regime, we were focused on congressmen who couldn't keep it in their pants. While we should have been focusing on stopping the flow of conventional weapons into the country we were too focused on trivial sideshows. So while the US was talking about wieners, Assad was purchasing weapons from companies like Rosoboronexport.

Rosoboronexport isn't talked about however since the company has partners all across the world. Making lucrative deals with India, Italy, Malaysia, Brazil, China, France, Kazakhstan, and Peru (just to name a few) the company shows no sign of pulling back. And why should they? The world has shown absolutely no outrage while companies like Rosoboronexport supply the weapons for genocidal regimes across the globe.

As long as companies like this one produce "conventional weapons" for embattled regimes the world has no real say in the matter. If the country buying the weapons feels like using them to kill hundreds of thousands of their own citizens... well that is just up to the country now isn't it?

And that is where the next major failure came when dealing with Syria's barbaric leadership.

The Ultimate "Red Line"

Since the very start of the League of Nations following World War One the world community has battled the question of state sovereignty. In the most simplistic analogy the question can be compared to an apartment building. When one neighbor hears their neighbor beating his wife there is supposedly a question of how and when to intervene. The United Nations (the modern League of Nations) is supposed to act like the cop in this scenario. Yet what if the cop never goes to even check about the supposed domestic violence?

In the world community this has been one of the major problems with the United Nations. In times of blatant abuses committed across the globe the UN has neglected all such incidents unless they cross a border. As long as the beating (killing) is contained to the apartment (country) the UN appears far to willing to ignore the scenario all together. And in many cases the abuses have been tolerated even when the blood starts to pour over national borders.

In Bosnia the genocide was tolerated by simply applying the term "ethnic cleansing". In Rwanda the genocide was tolerated due to the deaths of 11 Dutch blue hats. And in Cambodia the world was happy to ignore genocide since it was just a poor country killing it's own. Containment of the crime seemed preferable to stopping it all together in every case.

This trend however didn't start with the 20th century. One of the main reasons for the United States not signing the Genocide Convention was the fear that our own sins committed against the First Nation would be rehashed. After all, many of those crimes were committed on lands we technically didn't own at the time. And if we could be accused of the crime than why should we go punishing others for the same offense?

At the end of World War Two the United States managed to kill it's conscience by pushing forward the Nuremberg Trials. While we watched Nazis commit suicide rather than face the music over crimes the US had committed in its past, Washington claimed the moral high ground. The hypocrisy of the fact that Washington was (and still is) committing a slow cultural and ethnic genocide of the Native American community wasn't up for question. We were after all punishing a genocide that had spread across borders, seas, and continents.

So why do we hesitate to punish acts of genocide when they occur within the confines of a nation's borders?

Syria's Alawite controlled government has long kept it's boot on the throat of Syria's religious majority. By offering protection through a bolstered military the Assad regime pretended to be protecting the national interest of self-defense. Offering planes, tanks, and germs to guard against the ever lingering "Jewish threat", Assad built up the arsenal he knew he would eventually need to maintain control. All the weapons, all the lies, were just to maintain power.

To the outside world this lie of legitimate interests in protecting Syria's desire for self-determination
of it's own fate seemed almost heroic. Here they had a minority leader placing the rights of all Syria ahead of his own self interest. The flimsy facade was varnished over by the platitudes of weary Western nations. Nobody wanted a repeat of the Yom Kippur War after all.

So while Syria built up it's chemical weapon stocks the West ignored the abusive regime. From as early as 1968 the government of Syria was publicly showing interests in the obtaining and use of a weapon the rest of the world had banned. Syria's increase of interests in the unconventional weapons was ignored in the 80s as the regime began to bolster it's military with chemicals and scuds.

It never occurred to the world to tell Syria no. After all, they hadn't shown any intention to use them across any border (except Israel's). And as long as the weapons were being contained to their own country, why should the world act?

When Iraq and Iran began using chemical weapons in their little recreation of WW1 the world turned a blind eye. However all the while the West and East were supplying the very chemicals that Iraq and Iran needed to keep the blood flowing. Washington didn't even blink when Iraq launched it's al-Anfal campaign against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq. And why should they? That was still technically within Iraq's borders right? And they hadn't complained when the same weapons were used on Iranians...

With Syria the question of national sovereignty was still the issue. The West needed to attempt to chip away at the shell Syria had built around itself. Questioning a state's sensitive attachment to it's ego (national sovereignty) wasn't exactly the way to warm Assad's government up to the "great Satan". And complaining about weapons that Israel is still believed to have wasn't going to help either.

Had the world used sanctions perhaps there would have been a way to work around the egotistical posturing that was taking place between Syria and the West. By limiting the influx of weapons into Syria in both the 20th and 21st century the world could have weakened a regime that we all knew was a danger to sustainable peace. And yet it is in this aspect of applying sanctions and embargoes that the liberal minded war opposing majority gets lost.

Crossing The Line Of State Sovereignty 

(Peacefully)

When applying sanctions with the intent of crippling a regime and forcing unrest with the long term goal of peace you generally lose the fringe elements on both ends. The idea of causing internal crisis with no clear idea of what comes out on the other side is generally considered interfering rather than intervening. And in cases such as Iran, the United States has proven just how piss poor that strategy works.

In the case of Syria the ideal way to force Assad to either change or leave would had been to reward surrounding states for cooperating with us while forcing Syria into further isolation. It isn't a perfect strategy, but it is far more preferable to the options we are left with today.

In this method the world should not have leaned upon the United States and the UN should have stood up and questioned Syria's state sovereignty. The continued abuse of Syria's own people when seeking a change in their own right to self governance should had been our first response as a world community. In 2008 the world should had spent more time forcing Assad to meet the standards of the international community rather than accept his brutal methods of governance. This would have of course continued the international isolation of Syria from the West. Yet it would have kept the Syrian government in a position where it had no bargaining chips to play.

However the opportunity to political and economic muscle was passed up as France bent over instead.

At that point the world should have begun to stand up to Assad's main cheerleaders in Moscow and Beijing. By implementing roadblocks between the flow of oil, weapons, cash, and chemicals between Assad's main backers the world could have drastically shortened the crisis that we are watching today. This method would have been of course portrayed as the West interfering and playing political brinksmanship with Putin and Assad. Yet the flow of weapons would have at very least been interrupted.

Just as JFK had done with Cuba, the United Nations should have said screw the rules and enforced any measures possible to stop the influx of helicopters and ammunition. Unlike Russia in the 1900's however, Putin would had been more than willing to see just how bold the West really is. And that is where the entire plan goes to hell.

Without the will to play chicken with dictators like Putin the world community can only expect more bloodshed like that in Syria. If the world is not willing to accept some destabilization of countries like Syria in an effort to end the imperialistic aspirations of countries like Russia then the cycle of purges will continue.

Syria should have been pushed to the brink while the world community prepared to bust in the door with the first misstep Assad took. Isolation, deprivation, and the promise of relief being kept just out of reach are all three methods that (while risking war) have the chance of ending in peace.

Of course history doesn't show us this. And for most that have read this far this post is just a bit too far to accept. But all you really have to do is ask yourself if you want to see another Syria? Another Bosnia? Or another Cambodia?

(close enough to watch it all come tumbling down)

The Alternative

Had the UN prepared themselves to shoot anyone from either side that dared cross the line in Bosnia the genocide may have never happened. However the Serbs had seen how blue hats responded to even the slightest hint of violence. It was for this reason that the Serbian guerrillas exercised extreme violence in the face of blue hat observers. The utter lack of fear of reprisal or accountability was blatantly obvious.

The main fear on the part of the UN was getting themselves involved in a shooting match. The idea of having multiple nations in one area where the bodies are bound to start piling up seemed way to far out in right field. Yet it was in their obvious fear of using their guns that the UN showed their lack of commitment to ending the killing.

The one thing history has shown us in Bosnia, and all other such cases, is that no army of savages has ever been stopped by asking them politely.

Kosovo showed the world what brutal aerial bombardment could do to the moral of a ground bound foe. The world watched as jets and rockets filled the air and the Serbian aggressors began their retreat. Digging in, the hardliners waited for their number to be called.

Had the UN ordered ground units into the area to mop up the resistance the Serbs across the map would had taken notice. The will to fight would had been crippled. The desire to die for a cause they had no possibility to achieve would had died right there and then.

No man wants to die so that another man can be oppressed by his blood. We either fight for freedom or we fight because that is the lie they have fed us. For the Serbs the fight for soil would had been far less appealing had they known that the world would not tolerate their genocidal efforts.

But all that requires a world where we are willing to question the morality of imposing ideals of national sovereignty over the ideal of basic human rights. It requires a world where the division between West and East is ignored and abandoned. It requires a world that simply ask what we would do to stop the crime rather than how we are expected to handle it.

Overly Simplistic?

For me the moral obligation to refrain from inflicting pain upon another person has always been thrown out when faced with things I know to be wrong. When faced with watching somebody who is outnumbered and outgunned I have always thrown my hat in on the losing side. Not because I wanted to fight, but because I wanted to end the fight. And once it was over I have always saught to resolve the conflict with words rather than fists.

Those who have read this blog for any length of time know that I (the main author) was a punk growing up. All those years of running around with spikes and chains didn't teach me much, but they did show me that sometimes fighting is preferable to the guilt of not doing so when you should.

Is this view of Syria overly simplistic?

Hell yes.

Is it realistic?

Well that we may never know.

Want to reply to the author of this post? 

Contact him on Twitter: @alders_ledge

Source Documents:
(Not All Sources Listed)

Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/04/09/cold-blood-0

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17344858

WW4 Report
http://ww4report.com/node/12589

Africa News Network
http://www.ann7.com/article/2566-2708201327082013all-we-are-left-with-is-god-ghouta-survivor-says.html#.Uij9fLypYXy

International Business Times
http://www.ibtimes.com/syria-chemical-weapons-program-helped-western-companies-selling-precursor-nerve-agents-1395301

NTI
http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/syria_chemical.pdf?_=1316466790