Matt 24 watch, 229c: Courtesy MEMRI, Mahdi Tayeb, head of the Iranian Ammar think-tank inadvertently exposes the mirror psychology Mahdist apocalyptic projections that influence Supreme Leader Khameni, the other Mullahs and other decision-makers

Thanks to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), we can get a glimpse into the regrettably apocalyptic, mirror psychology projective mindset that evidently unduly influences Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni and the other Mullahs, through translated videotaped remarks of "Mahdi Tayeb, head of the Iranian Ammar think-tank advising Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which [were] posted on the Internet on February 1, 2013":

Now, a few contextual remarks are in order, given our duty to properly discern and respond to the signs of our times. (In this case, it is my unpleasant duty to publicise an inadvertent expose of the sort of thinking that is influencing Iran's leadership. Where as responsible, praying, voting and speaking citizens, we need to be aware of key global trends.)

Also, the things exposed in the transcript below, international and regional leaders know, or should know. 

So should those who make editorial decisions regarding what we see, hear or read in our media. 

This issue takes on particularly important colour given the recent fiasco where I think it was an Iranian man obtained a diplomatic St Kitts passport for $ 1 million, and went to Canada wishing to see the Prime Minister of that sister Commonwealth nation. A scandal broke, one that does not reflect well on our region. (And, other Caribbean territories hoping to attract investors by holding out the prospect of economic citizenship on condition of big enough investments or payments, should take due note.)

Back to the analysis . . . 

 Clipping the transcript of the video, HT Jihad Watch:

Mahdi Tayeb: If you pay attention to the Star of David on the Israeli flag, you may understand what the Jews want. It embodies all the desires of the Jews. The one thing that the Jews want is to take over the entire world . . . . The first stage is Jerusalem. They want to liberate Jerusalem and settle in Palestine. The second stage is the liberation of the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. [--> This is based on a common propagandistic misinterpretation of the Israeli flag, cf. comment below, also cf; here on IslamIST end of days black flag armies and here on wider geostrategic- spiritual issues at stake because of IslamISM] The third stage of their operation is to take over the entire world.

The Star of David symbolizes this. It has six points, each of which is an arrow. This star must rise in Jerusalem. When it appears, the two blue lines above the star will assume their positions. They respect the Nile and the Euphrates. They will assume their positions, and then the six arrows of the star will move in different directions around the globe, until they meet again.

[...]

They have divided the people of the world into three classes: first-class people, second-class people, and third-class people. The Jews, or the Israelite race, are the first-class people. God created the world for them. He awarded the world to them. He told them to take over the world.

[...]

The second-class people are people who do not belong to the Israelite race – they are not the descendants of Jacob – but who accept the Jews to be first-class people. They do not belong to the Israelite race, but they accept that the Jews rule the world. These are second-class people. They have the right to live, but they must serve the Israelites.

[...]

Who are the third-class people? They are the ones who do not belong to the Israelite race, and do not accept Jewish supremacy.

[...]

What do they deserve? They deserve [to be buried] one meter under ground.

[...]

Therefore, all the Muslims must be killed because they do not accept Jewish supremacy. They must all be killed. Let me tell you something... In this world, who is in need of an atomic bomb? Who would benefit from an atomic bomb? The only ones who need an atomic bomb in order to become global are the Jews. We Muslims number 1.4 billion people. No Muslim accepts Jewish supremacy.

In order to become global the Jews must kill Muslims en masse. In other words, they have to kill 1.4 billion people. If they wanted to kill them with conventional means, like rockets and conventional warheads... A conventional warhead weighs a maximum of one ton and can kill up to 500 people. In order to kill 1.4 billion people, you would need 10 million such bombs. There is not enough room to store all these bombs.

So they need means of mass killing, which can kill 500,000 people in one go. They need the means to kill 400,000 people in one go. Only the atomic bomb can achieve this.

That's a lot of fairly extreme inferences from a simple object, a national flag, to the point where questions of blame the intended victim blood libel must be raised. A few corrective remarks are in order:

1 -->  The remarks trace to an all too common propagandistic twisting of the meaning of the Israeli flag,

Jamaica's Flag of August 6, 1962, directly
based on the Scottish and UK flags, with
a cross of St Andrew in the colour that
represents the light of the sun.Thus
Jamaica's flag subtly reflects the
African [black], Scottish-Celtic, British
and Christian heritage of that famously
"Green Isle of the Indies" (HT: JIS)

apparently one favoured by the late Yassar Arafat. The Israeli flag is indeed based on the traditional Star of David/Seal of Solomon, which probably does not date to David but is at least medieval and on some views represents the top of a pomegranate. (The pomegranate fruit is a symbol of the Torah with the 613 precepts for living derived from it by the rabbis being represented by the hundreds of pulp-enclosed seeds within the fruit. So, it symbolises Judaism and/or the wisdom and much admired greatness of Solomon. Where, of course, from crescent moons and stars to t- and X- Crosses, religious symbols are a commonplace on national flags reflective of historic heritage.)

2 --> The two stripes and white background are evidently derived from the prayer-shawl, which again is ancient. Regardless of how one may wish to interpret the various OT prophetic texts of end of days situations where by the direct intervention of God the Assyrian and the Egyptian are envisioned as God's people too, the historic settled land of Israel (which is in the land of Canaan) is the region of the territories the -- largely secular and socialist -- Zionist movement sought to settle. JVL notes:

Flag of Israel. (Cf discussion here)

Zionist tradition credits the design of the Zionist flag to David Wolffsohn. Legend even tells precisely when Wolffsohn had his brainstorm, namely, that during a meeting in Basel Herzl raised the question of the Zionist flag. When his proposal of a white banner with seven gold stars failed to marshal a consensus, Wolffsohn stood up and said: "Why do we have to search? Here is our national flag." Upon which he displayed his prayer shawl and showed everyone the national flag: a white field with blue stripes along the margin. 

“At the behest of our leader Herzl, I came to Basle to make preparations for the Zionist Congress. Among many other problems that occupied me then was one which contained something of the essence of the Jewish problem. What flag would we hang in the Congress Hall? Then an idea struck me. We have a flag — and it is blue and white. The talith (prayer ahawl) with which we wrap ouselves when we pray: that is our symbol. Let us take this Talith from its bag and unroll it before the eyes of Israel and the eyes of all nations. So I ordered a blue and white flag with the Shield of David painted upon it. That is how the national flag, that flew over Congress Hall, came into being.” — David Wolffsohn

3 -->  Common decency alone -- much less sound historiographical principles -- would tell us that where there is an innocent and credibly authentic interpretation of a symbol, it should prevail. The burden of proof  beyond reasonable doubt that we should hold otherwise therefore being upon those who would project a loaded, accusatory and toxic interpretation. One that in this case is patently utterly unlikely to be met.

4 --> Where also, Jews living in what we call Iraq and in Syria for 2,500 years saw and see themselves as exiles and descendants of exiles hoping to go home, not conquering settlers, and those of Egypt see themselves as in a traditional and often hospitable land of Jewish refuge for the same 2,500 years.  

5 --> Note Wikipedia on the Israeli Flag:

The blue stripes are intended to symbolize the stripes on a tallit, the traditional Jewish prayer shawl. The portrayal of a Star of David on the flag of the State of Israel is a widely-acknowledged symbol of Judaism.

The Israelites used a blue coloured dye called tekhelet; this dye may have been made from the marine snail Murex trunculus.^[4] This dye was very important in both Jewish and non-Jewish cultures of this time, and was used by royalty and the upper class in dyeing their clothing, sheets, curtains, etc. (The dye from a related snail can be processed to form Tyrian purple called argaman.)

In the Bible, the Israelites are commanded to have one of the threads of their tassels (tzitzit) dyed with tekhelet; "so that they may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them (Num 15:39)." Tekhelet corresponds to the colour of the divine revelation (Midrash Numbers Rabbah xv.). Sometime near the end of the Talmudic era (500-600 CE) the industry that produced this dye collapsed. It became more rare; over time, the Jewish community lost the tradition of which species of shellfish produced this dye. Since Jews were then unable to fulfil this commandment, they have since left their tzitzit (tallit strings) white. However, in remembrance of the commandment to use the tekhelet dye, it became common for Jews to have blue or purple stripes woven into the cloth of their tallit.

6 --> However, by projecting a very different meaning unto the flag, in hostile propagandised minds, it becomes a symbol of projected genocidal intent ascribed to Jews and especially those who have successfully sought the  restoration of their historic homeland. For which, the ideals can be deduced from the Israeli Declaration of Independence, 1948, which reads in key parts:

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. 

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. 

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood. 

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country. 

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home . . . . 

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel". 

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations. 

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. 

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East. 

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel. 

PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE "ROCK OF ISRAEL", WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948). 

7 --> Again, where there is an innocent interpretation, common decency and sound historiography should prevail.


8 --> The Wikipedia article goes on to note:

It has been alleged by some groups that the blue stripes on the Israeli flag actually represent the rivers Nile and Euphrates as the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, the land promised to the Jews by God.^[12] Those making this allegation insist that the flag "secretly" represents the desire of Jews to conquer all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers, which would involve conquering and ruling over much of Egypt, all of Jordan, and some of Syria and Iraq. Yasser Arafat, Iran and Hamas also made the allegation,^[13] and repeatedly tied this notion to the stripes on the Israeli flag.^[14][3]

Both Zionist and anti-Zionist authors have debunked the claim that the stripes on the flag represent territorial ambitions. Daniel Pipes notes "In fact, the blue lines derive from the design on the traditional Jewish prayer shawl",^[15] and Danny Rubinstein points out that "...Arafat... added, in interviews that he gave in the past, that the two blue stripes on the Israeli flag represent the Nile and the Euphrates... No Israeli, even those who demonstrate understanding for Palestinian distress, will accept the... nonsense about the blue stripes on the flag, which was designed according to the colours of the traditional tallit (prayer shawl)..."^[3] Persistent critic of Israel and Zionism Israel Shahak is equally explicit. In his The Zionist Plan for the Middle East he states

A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit).

Saqr Abu Fakhr, an Arab writer, has also spoken out against this idea. He writes that the "Nile to Euphrates" claim regarding the flag is one of seven popular misconceptions and/or myths about Jews which, despite being unfounded and having abundant evidence refuting them, continue to circulate in the Arab world.^[16]

Nevertheless, the Hamas covenant states "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates," and as recently as January 29, 2006, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar issued a demand for Israel to change its flag, citing the "Nile to Euphrates" argument.

9 --> In such a situation, the projection of genocidal intent multiplied by bad history (Einstein, a physicist, pacifist and secular Jew discovered the energy equivalence of rest-mass through reflections on relativity of the laws of physics and the constancy of the speed of light in non-accelerated frames of reference; he did not design or develop the atom bomb), is obviously unworthy, propagandistic, shrilly hateful and unjustified.

10 --> However, in a context of repeated public threats of genocide against Israel by Iran, it is historically and psychologically unsurprising to find projections of blame and demonisation to the intended victim of aggression. 

11 --> It is, however, quite saddening to see such irresponsible rhetoric coming from the mouth of a leader of a think-tank that advises leaders of a state seeking to develop the technical means that enable creation of a nuclear arsenal and the means of delivery of such weapons at ranges of 1 - 2,000 miles, just the range to reach Israel.
_____________ 

It is only reasonable to call for the leadership of Iran to denounce, correct and repudiate such destructive propaganda and to change their path before it is horrifically too late. And, failing that, world leaders who act as though such an irresponsible and patently dangerously unstable regime is within the norms of civilised conduct, would be for cause be deemed irresponsible for failing to take the threats and actions of Iran seriously, enforcing sanctions and such other steps as are credibly necessary to block access to the means of genocide.  END

Matt 24 watch, 229b: Former US UN Ambassador John Bolton on the emerging Geneva nuke deal with Iran

Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton weighs in:, speaking on the round two negotiations that are starting up after the French and/or Iranians stopped the last round. If it was the French, it was because they saw the deal as dangerously favourable to Iran's nuke bomb agenda. If Iran, it is because it is trying to manufacture a "right" to enrich Uranium despite the longstanding Non Proliferation Treaty conditions under which it got access to nuclear technologies under the Shah. (The same Shah Rezi Pahlevi the Mullahs overthrew.)

Bolton comments:

Secretary of State John Kerry has spared no effort to avoid another Geneva debacle, almost certainly making more concessions to Iran to secure agreement. The failed deal was certainly wretched from America’s perspective, involving countless problems and deficiencies. This week’s deal will be worse.

It is no answer that Obama is seeking merely an “interim” understanding with Iran. “Interim” concessions have a way of getting locked-in, as seemingly ad hoc trade-offs freeze into permanence. Indeed, Obama’s “step-by-step” approach itself tells Tehran’s mullahs how desperately Obama wants a deal, and how willingly he ignores the reality that Iran’s nuclear program has never been peaceful.

But there is a larger point here, beyond whatever specific terms emerge this week in Geneva. The West’s efforts to negotiate with Iran are doomed to failure because the parties’ objectives are utterly incompatible. A decade of abortive negotiations alone demonstrates this basic truth, which Iran’s ongoing diplomatic “charm offensive” cannot obscure.

 What is going on? Bolton's analysis:

Obama sees negotiations as deflecting the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. Iran sees them, by contrast, as helping ensure success for that very weapons program. There is simply no compromise between these objectives. There are no “bridging proposals” that can overcome irreconcilable differences.

Tehran’s primary negotiation objective is to eliminate the threat of military strikes against its nuclear program. Despite Obama’s rhetoric that “all options are on the table,” no one believes he will use force. And who knows what private assurances Obama or Kerry have already given the ayatollahs (a fruitful area for Congressional inquiry)? That leaves Israel, which the Obama administration is pressuring unmercifully, not just on Iran but also on the Palestinians.

I doubt that any US administration c 2013 can be naive about Iran and its long-term drive to nuke weapons. My own view is, they feel they can live with a nuclear Iran, especially in a context where Mr Obama plainly fundamentally agrees with the idea that the West, especially the US is the chief global problem to be kept in check.

U/D 1: Looks like I am not alone in that assessment, cf. PowerLine's Scott Johnson, here, on a conference call with Dr Emily Landau, an expert on nuke weapons breakouts:

Dr. Landau asks why parties other than France aren’t raising these technical issues. 

[To wit: The original clause on Arak – that would have prevented Iran from commissioning the facility for six months, but would have allowed for continued construction work – is Iran’s tactic in a nutshell. To make “concessions” that are not concessions at all, because Iran was not on track to commission the facility in the next six months, but certainly wanted to be able to continue construction work so that it would be ready to do so later in 2014. And in return, to get sanctions lifted.]

They are straightforward issues with respect to which she finds the apparent concessions to be puzzling. I asked Dr. Lanadau: Isn’t the simplest explanation that the United States is okay with Iran’s development of nuclear weapons? 

She laughed uncomfortably and responded that she took Obama at his word while acknowledging the circumstantial basis of the question. As we have all learned in recent days if not earlier, taking Obama and his “declared policy” (to borrow Dr. Landau’s term) at face value is a big mistake.

U/D 2: Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN and a distinguished historian, writing in an opinion piece in the LA Times, after describing the dismissive ridicule Israeli PM Netanyahu is facing as an alleged spoiler undercutting supposed Iranian moderates, observes:

Netanyahu is acting out of a deep sense of duty to defend Israel against an existential threat. Such dangers are rare in most countries' experience but are traumatically common in Israel's, and they render the price of ridicule irrelevant.

Moreover, when formulating policies vital to Israel's survival, the prime minister consults with Israel's renowned intelligence community, a robust national security council and highly specialized units of the Israel Defense Forces. Netanyahu may at times appear to stand alone on Iran, but he is backed by a world-class body of experts.

In 2011, these same analysts predicted that the Arab Spring, which was widely hailed as the dawn of Middle Eastern democracy, would be hijacked by Islamic radicals. They foresaw years of brutal civil strife. Netanyahu publicly expressed these conclusions and was denounced as a naysayer by many of the same columnists who are now lambasting him on Iran.

Yet it is precisely on Iran that Israeli specialists have proved most prescient. They were the first, more than 20 years ago, to reveal Iran's clandestine nuclear activities. They continued to scrutinize the program, emphasizing its military goals, even after 2003, when weaponization was purportedly halted.

Throughout several attempts at diplomacy, these experts have disclosed the ways that Iran systematically obstructed United Nations observers, lied to world leaders and hid nuclear facilities, such as the one at Fordow, which can have no peaceful purpose. Israeli intelligence has accurately tracked Iran's support for terrorist organizations, its role in the massacre of thousands of Syrians and its responsibility for attacks against civilians in dozens of cities around the world.

And the march of folly goes on, and on.

The onward path is predictable.

Beyond a certain point, Israel will strike, regardless of global opinion and International sanctions likely to come of such. For, given the repeated declaration of intent to wipe Israel off the map, the matter is survival, not only of Israel but the Jewish people.

At this point, frankly, I feel like a passenger in a car that has begun to skid and slide out of control into the path of fast moving heavy traffic.

We need a miracle. END

Matt 24 watch, 230: Iron Age altar found at Shiloh, Israel -- is this the Altar of Eli and Samuel?

Archaeology can be described as an old codger with a spade (and, sometimes a teaspoon and toothbrush) digging through old rubbish, but with an instructed eye. In and around Israel, that work keeps turning up biblical era remnants and other bits and pieces that corroborate or flesh out what the text tells us. And sometimes, too, the archaeologists are put onto the track because of what gets turned up at construction sites or turned up by farmers, etc.

In this case, thanks to JNS.org and algemeiner.com, we see how:

a stone altar dated to the Iron Age—the period of Israelite kings—was accidentally exposed

The Tel Shiloh dig, where an Iron Age altar was found

during a dig conducted by an archaeological staff officer of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria.

The altar was found amid the stones of a wall dated to the Byzantine period. Apparently, the Byzantines removed the altar from its original location in Tel Shiloh and used it to build a structure at the foot of the tel. The discovery is the first tangible evidence that Shiloh was a cultic center prior to and during the First Temple period. Previously, the only evidence for that theory were descriptions in the Bible about the Tabernacle at the time of Joshua and later in the time of Eli the high priest and the prophet Samuel.

 This of course simply adds more details to a long term pattern. END

Matt 24 watch, 229a: While reports suggest a done Munich II deal made in secret by Valerie Jarrett, the Saudis -- yes, the SAUDIS -- are unhappy with the Obama administration's ongoing Geneva diplomatic nuke game with Iran . . .

A week ago, I expressed serious concerns about the ongoing Geneva negotiations with Iran over its push towards nukes. In the course of those remarks, I cited a Times of Israel report that noted from Israeli TV news and views shows how:

 Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “in a state of shocked disbelief” at the deal apparently taking shape in Geneva over Iran’s nuclear program . . . . The Netanyahu government is “in a crisis of faith” with the Obama administration over the possible deal, Israel’s Channel 1 News further reported, in part because it apparently differs in content from the terms that Kerry had previously described to Netanyahu. Other Israeli reports said Netanyahu felt he had been “misled” by the US over the terms of the deal. 

Netanyahu, who blasted the possible accord as the “deal of the century” for Iran, believes it would enable the Islamic Republic to become a “nuclear breakout state,” the TV reports said — since Iran would retain its nuclear enrichment capabilities, and would thus be capable of racing to a bomb at short notice at a time of its choosing. 

Israel, the TV reports said, also believes the US has been negotiating with Iran in a secret channel, without disclosing the content of those discussions to Israel . . . 

 A further TOI report, datelined Nov 17 - 18 (as at this point -- for cause  -- Obama administration denials have little credibility on either domestic or international events and issues . . . ), now allows us to flesh out those concerns, and make a very significant timeline cross-link to other developments:

‘Geneva talks a facade, US-Iran worked secretly on deal for past year’

White House denies report Obama team has been negotiating terms with Tehran, didn’t fully coordinate with Israel

By Stuart Winer November 17, 2013, 10:38 pm Updated: November 18, 2013, 2:07 am
 [ . . . ]

The Geneva negotiations between the so-called P5+1 powers and Iran are a mere “facade,” because the terms of a deal on Iran’s nuclear program have been negotiated in talks between a top adviser to President Barack Obama and a leading Iranian nuclear official that have continued in secret for more than a year, Israeli television reported Sunday. 

Despite ostensible full coordination between the US and Israel over strategies for thwarting Iran’s nuclear weapons drive, the administration did not keep Israel fully informed on those talks, Channel 10 news reported, but Jerusalem nonetheless has a pretty clear picture of what has been going on in the secret channel. 

White House spokesman Bernadette Meehan was quoted by Haaretz as saying that the report was “absolutely, 100 percent false.”

The report, which relied on unnamed senior Israeli officials, said the US team to the secret talks was led by Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. Her primary interlocutor, the report said, was the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi. The talks have been taking place in various Gulf states.

In the course of the talks, the report said, the Americans offered the Iranians a series of “confidence-building measures,” which underlined American readiness to conclude a deal and undercut sanctions pressure.

It was the deal discussed in these secret talks, the report said, that the Americans then brought to Geneva earlier this month, where it was largely adopted by the P5+1 nations — the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, plus Germany . . . . 

Sunday’s Channel 10 report was not the first to assert a secret US-Iran channel involving Obama aide Jarrett. In November of 2012, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth said Jarrett — a Chicago lawyer born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents, and good friend of Obama’s — was “a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime.”

That report said “Jarrett served as the personal and direct emissary of the president to secret meetings with the Iranians, which are understood to have taken place in one of the Gulf principalities.”

 So, at this time, we have two separate Israeli reports on a pattern of negotiations using a personal emissary of Mr Obama who is Iranian.

Frankly, at this point, unless there is strong corroboration of the Obama administration talking points, I am for cause inclined to hold them as of negligible credibility. That is the price a Government pays for building up a track record of betrayal and deceiving of those who trust them and support them.

Worse, the timing -- across a year -- coincides far too neatly with the immense pressure brought to bear on Israel at about the same time to back down from striking the Iranian nuke programme. 

Which of course was also shortly before an American Presidential election and in the context of betrayal of diplomatic and security personnel fighting for their lives on the ground in Benghazi, multiplied by manipulating the public perception of these events. Mix in the recent expose of deceit since 2010 on implications of the Obamacare health insurance scheme, and the current US administration does not come up smelling like a freshly picked rose.

U/D 1, Nov 21:  Let us remind ourselves of the reach of Iran's existing and in-development ballistic missile capacity -- the Shahab 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 -- since c 2008, asking ourselves just what Iran intends to put on such missiles with such a reach (pardon fuzzy text), why:

U/D 2, Nov 21: Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine blog, notes from French television media:

Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khameni has assured his militiamen that Israel is “doomed to failure and annihilation.” In the same speech, which was broadcast live on State television, Khameni added that “Zionist leaders cannot be called humans.”

Have you seen this reported by our [US] mainstream media? I haven’t. It came to my attention via French television. [--> Something like this should have been headlined, on raw news value and timeliness,so lack of headlines is itself a significant warning . . . ]

Common sense suggests that a nuclear arms deal with a nation whose top leader holds such views is not worth reaching unless it ensures the dismantling of that nation’s nuclear arms capacity. Common sense further suggests that such a nation will not agree to dismantlement, and Iran has not agreed to it . . . .

 We the public of the world obviously need to know that it was not just Ahmadinejad (who was in any case largely a figurehead), but the Supreme Leader. Where, he has set out to dehumanise Israelis, a major warning sign already. A sign we must multiply by the continued threat of annihilation of Israel.

The rockets are in place and/or are under development, and it is patent that the warheads are under development. Nuke warheads.

And if -- as it seems some have argued [forgetting the grim lessons of Nazi Germany]  -- the supreme leader is only giving "red meat" to his public and military, what does that say about the underlying mindset, attitudes and stability of the regime and its institutions?  

Plainly, Mirengoff is right to conclude:

No one doubts that Khameni is ready to deal. He wants sanctions to be weakened and then terminated in exchange, basically, for not pressing ahead much with his nuclear program. The question is whether we should reach such a deal with a leader who talks about the annihilation of Israel and its subhuman leaders . . . . Under the kinds of deals being discussed, it appears Iran could [break out and create nuclear weapons] in a matter of months. 

That is why only dismantlement is acceptable.

 Then, too, we need to factor in the Saudi response, this time, as brought to our notice via Reuters, in a now more than month-old but highly relevant report:

Insight: Saudis brace for 'nightmare' of U.S.-Iran rapprochement

By Angus McDowall

RIYADH Wed Oct 9, 2013 1:51pm EDT

When Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, made no annual address to the United Nations General Assembly last week for the first time ever, his unspoken message could hardly have been louder.

For most countries, refusing to give a scheduled speech would count as little more than a diplomatic slap on the wrist, but for staid Saudi Arabia, which prefers backroom politicking to the public arena, it was uncharacteristically forthright.

Engaged in what they see as a life-and-death struggle for the future of the Middle East with arch-rival Iran, Saudi rulers are furious that the international body has taken no action over Syria, where they and Tehran back opposing sides.

Unlike in years past, they are not only angry with permanent Security Council members China and Russia, however, but with the United States, which they believe has repeatedly let down its Arab friends with policies they see as both weak and naive.

Like Washington's other main Middle Eastern ally, Israel, the Saudis fear that President Barack Obama has in the process allowed mutual enemies to gain an upper hand . . .

 In short, the Saudis are very concerned that the Obama administration is about to cede the Middle East to a renewed Persian empire, armed with nukes and the ballistic and cruise missiles to deliver them as far as Europe already, and soon the whole world.

However, I don't buy the idea that any American administration c 2013 is being naive, as I noted a week ago:

By forcing a delay to now, blocking Israel from acting a year ago, the US may actually have already let Iran reach the nuke threshold, in which context, the agreement proposed would have sealed the deal that a nuke Iran is acceptable to this Administration. 

We now know those talks with Iran also amounted to effective abandonment of containing Iran's nuke ambitions, multiplied by deceiving what have to now be deemed former allies in the Middle East, not only Israel but Saudi Arabia and the cluster of states near enough to Iran to be under threat of a nuke umbrella -- immediately, those within 1,500 miles given the range of an intermediate range ballistic or cruise missile. (And if such are mounted on ships, that is a global threat. Indeed, IslamIST terrorism backed by a nuclear Iran would become an instant global nuclear threat.) 

That is what we now seem to be at the threshold of facing. 

I hate to say this, and know some will be angered by such a chain of reasoning -- especially as updated, but logic in light of evident facts and consequences that MUST be recognised in strategic decision making centres in Washington DC, Jerusalem, Tehran, London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing and elsewhere now pushes me:

I: this is patently too co-ordinated, too neat and definitive in potential outcomes -- and too well timed to exploit a predictable distraction over a controversial US domestic policy issue that has been bubbling up since 2010 -- to be mere coincidence and feckless bumbling. 

II: It looks deliberate. 

III: There is no way the senior officials in Washington could be unaware of the chain of highly likely geostrategic consequences outlined above.
_________________________________________________ 

Conclusion: 

IV: Obviously, those consequences are acceptable to them and reflect a fundamental alienation from Israel and willingness to live with the sort of Middle East that is emerging.

Though many Americans would not agree with such a re-alignment, it is obvious that they have lacked the capability to block any number of radical and questionable "change[s]" emanating from this administration.  

Further conclusion:

V: The United States is being fundamentally realigned in the post-Christian, secularist, statist European mould, and:

•  it seems the balance of forces is now on the side of that re-alignment,  

• from seeking to corrupt marriage (the most fundamental civilisation-stabilising social institution)  under false colours of equality and rights, 

• to massive statist takeovers of major sectors of the US economy 

• to alienating hitherto pivotal allies across the world (especially in major trouble-spots)  and 

• allowing or even actively enabling the rise of fundamentally hostile powers to a place where 

• they will predictably seriously hamper or even block any future US geo-strategic actions designed to be protective of the free world and pivotal trade choke points, starting with no 1 and 2 -- the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal. 

• Thus ushering in a new post-Christian era with radical Islam as the pivotal power bloc [probably envisioned as a third world champion and balance/ check to US imperialism . . . about as likely as Germany under Hitler was as a check to French and British Imperialism . . . ]

That very unwelcome summary is a recipe for global chaos and war on a scale hitherto unimaginable . . . .  the nuclear Armageddon clock just took a long step closer to midnight.

 We can multiply this by Mr Netanyahu's recent comment to the German newspaper, the Daily Bild, that Iran evidently has enough low enriched material to build five nuclear weapons:

“The Iranians already have five bombs’ worth of low-enriched uranium [--> which can plausibly be enriched to bomb-strength U-235 in as little as two weeks] ,” he told the German daily Bild. “If you press the sanctions now, you might actually get a better deal. If you have a bad diplomatic solution — what this appears to be — you actually may get the consequences you want to avoid. That is, you would have no choice but to exercise a military option in the future.”

As a final but one cited comment, we may note the assessment by Amos Yadlin, former IDF Intelligence Chief:

“Those who overestimate the threat of regional escalation damage the credibility of the military option and encourage a situation in which this becomes the only available option for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” wrote Maj. Gen. (ret) Amos Yadlin, the director of the INSS think tank, and research assistant Avner Golov in a recent issue of Strategic Assessment (PDF) . . . . 

Yadlin and Golov described five possible Iranian responses to a strike, ranging from total military restraint to full-blown regional war, and asserted that the most likely scenarios were two gradations of a limited response. The first, “the classic reactive strategy,” would be a tit-for-tat strike in which “a significant number of missiles would be launched from Iran and Lebanon in the direction of Dimona or any other target in Israel perceived as ‘nuclear-associated,’” the two wrote.

A more significant reaction, but one Yadlin and Golov also considered to have “a high likelihood” of being chosen, would include one or two missile volleys at Israeli cities, a strike against Saudi and Western interests in the Gulf, and air and sea suicide missions.

A more robust and deadly response, in which Iran launched dozens of missiles a day against Israeli cities — as a declaration of outrage against the violation of its sovereignty or as a means of deterring Israel from any future action — “would lead to a significant Israeli response and could lead to escalation of the conflict… which could threaten the continued survival of the regime.” So long as a Western strike focused solely on the nuclear program and not wider regime assets, the two wrote, the regime would likely refrain from such a response.

So, we need to take very seriously (HT: TOI) Mr Netanyahu's just past security chief, Yaakov Amidror, when he said to the UK Financial Times that Israel is both capable and willing to act even unilaterally to set back Iran's nuke programme for a very long time.  Nor, should we dismiss the London Times report -- via TOI -- that Israel and Saudi Arabia may be working together on plans for such a strike against Iran. Especially, given this withering assessment in a paragraph by Israeli columnist David Horovitz:

Israel always knew the Obama Administration was all about “engagement” and that it would keep open the door to a diplomatic arrangement with Iran almost indefinitely. But there were those in Jerusalem who did not rule out an American resort to force, under certain circumstances, until the Syrian chemical weapons crisis over the summer. At that juncture, the horrified American public and Congressional reaction to the prospect of imminent conflict with Syria further hardened the Administration’s determination to do whatever it could to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis without resorting to force. And, since then, Israel has broadly concluded that — while the US insists it is not bluffing, and while it has made preparations for military action — there is no credible American military option.

In short, things are very serious indeed, and absent a few miracles -- for which we need to pray -- are liable to rapidly deteriorate. END

Rom 1 reply 42 (& Ac 27 test, 10 ): The pivotal importance of self-evident moral truths and rights for just governance in a sound and thriving community (vs the chaos and absurdity implicit in subjectivism, radical relativism and hyper-skeptical evolutionary materialism)

Paul's ship of Ac 27, wrecked at Malta
because of the march of folly

We live at a time where the very foundations of morality, rights and justice are rapidly being eroded in our civilisation. A key driving force in that erosion is the rise of moral subjectivism, radical relativism empowered by hyper-skeptical evolutionary materialist secularism dressed up in the lab coat. 

Or, should that be: The Lab Coat.

So, in the spirit of sound democratic governance we can see the vital need for in light of the lesson of Ac 27, we need to decisively answer the siren-songs that invite us to a march of folly, much as Paul encountered at Fair Havens in Crete, and which ended in predictable shipwreck. But, as we know all too well, what is sound or prudent is ever so easily shouted down, distracted from or drowned out and dismissed then forgotten in the public arena and in the councils of decision-makers alike.

But, to be the good man in a storm and impending shipwreck, one must first be the lonely and derided voice of sound counsel in the face of the march of folly.

Now, in the Uncommon Descent blog where I contribute and comment, this problem has come up recently in several threads, and in answer to it, the issue of self evident, pivotal moral truths as eye-opening corrective cases has come up. 

Predictably, there has been a fierce back and forth.

Some of that is well worth reproducing here at KF, and I would like to share two contributions, first this from my comment here. I will make a few adaptations, taking advantage of the facilities of a full blog post:

_______________

>>KF, 40:  . . .  In glancing back at the above, it is clear to me that a pivotal question is to clarify self evidence for record, and to apply that to moral issues (including the point that not all cases of murder are self evidently wrong and why that is the case).

Now, a self-evident truth will meet several criteria, in order to be clearly, certainly and patently true and knowable as true on pain of absurdity:

1 –> It must actually be true, i.e. it accurately describes reality (as we credibly experience it as conscious, self aware, knowing, understanding creatures . . . BTW [--> as this was raised earlier in the thread of discussion by an objector, cf. my reply here on]  the parallel lines postulate is indeed true in the sort of space it describes, whether or no our actual world in the large is that sort of space . . . )

2 –> It must be seen to be true, once one understands what is being asserted in light of common experience of being such a creature.

3 –> It will also be such that it MUST be true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial.

4 –> That is, to deny it, one has to immediately descend into clinging to the patently false [which includes but is not limited to the obviously self contradictory], chaotic, destructive, nonsensical, etc. (Think of denying 2 + 3 = 5 as a paradigm, or denying that error exists or denying that we are conscious.)

{It is worth the while to add a short note from 12 in the same thread:

KF, 12: . . .  it is on attending to and understanding a SET in light of experience of the world as a rational, aware, insightful mind, that one sees it true and necessarily true on pain of absurdity. I think in too many cases modern or ultra-modern absurdities pivot on a sort of induced secondary misunderstanding. Put another way: if you believe an absurdity to be true and reject or even stoutly resist correction, then there remains only the inversion that tries to label the true as false or incomprehensible. And yes, such is delusional, which looks uncomfortably like an ever spreading state of mind in our civilisation, which seems more and more bent on the march of folly. Notice above, how I have tried to awaken clean rational insight to see clearly that which should be intuitive, and to see clearly what happens on attempted denial.}

The point is, such extends to not only arithmetic or consciousness or human fallibility, but to morality also. To see how this applies to the world of morality, let us start with an example, as that helps us be clear and gives us a basis for looking at other cases by family resemblance. I will therefore now use the historically important and famous example of the US DOI, 1776:

The original US Declaration of Independence,
1776 (HT: History.com)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15, 13:8 - 10], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . .

The basic fact that in our quarrels — and this is a famous one — we instinctively find ourselves demanding to be treated fairly in light of a binding expectation rooted in our value and equality as being human, speaks loud and clear. 

That is, we are patently, publicly, inescapably and knowingly under moral government as inherently social creatures. 

This holds from our being in the wombs of our mothers — who are rendered extremely vulnerable thereby and so need the dedicated protection of the family and community — and on through our helpless infancy in which we can only plead for help by our cries, on up into adulthood in which we too in turn become nurturing parents. We therefore plainly live in a world where moral government makes sense, there is a foundational IS that properly grounds OUGHT, for us as individuals across our lifespan, and for the families and communities without which we would struggle to survive much less thrive. For which IS, there is — across time and civilisations  —  only one truly serious candidate, the inherently good Creator God who has equally made us in his image and thus we rightly have well grounded, binding expectations that our lives, liberty, and fulfillment of purpose and potential should not be unduly infringed. We have inalienable rights.

Which by their inherent nature as binding expectations to be treated with appropriate respect for our value as human beings, implying that others must choose aright to so treat with us, is inescapably moral. Ought is real, and pivotal.

Now, to deny or act against such lands us in a morass of chaos and inconsistencies, undermining the framework of our value and thriving. 

A chaos that is immediately apparent on reflection for a normally functioning, experienced human being with a functional conscience unwarped by blinding ideologies or interests. (For instance, a major tactic of the abuser or oppressor is to dehumanise or demonise the intended target. People from Africa kidnapped into slavery were portrayed as criminals being transported, then were projected as inherently inferior and sub human — never mind what was going on in the slave huts at night. Similarly, Stalin turned industrious and prosperous peasants into a criminal class and manufactured the spectre of traitors everywhere. And Hitler and co turned Poles, Jews and Slavs into subhuman prey, the mice to Nordic Cats, who were deemed superior as they had been chosen through natural selection for strength and health in the hard conditions of the ice age.)

In short, widespread injustice is a moral issue and its violations of human value frustrate human thriving, individually and collectively. So, an obvious trend to social disintegration into chaos and the war of might makes or grants ‘right’ if a given behaviour becomes widespread should be taken as strong evidence that the behaviour patently ends in absurdity.

In that context, we can see why kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering a child is a blatant case of that which is self-evidently wrong and ought not to be done. 

For it takes a paradigm case of an undeniable but vulnerable human being with vast potential, and twists that human being into a discardable toy to be used in ways that take twisted pleasure from inflicting pain and then robs the child of his or her life, tossing away the resulting broken body like trash. That child is a human being, undeniably, and as a child is by definition growing up into his or her potential. That child cannot consent to sexual activity, and is probably protesting and trying to cry out for help — which calls forth powerful protective instincts, but to no avail. Then the pervert finds some way to silence the cries and takes the victim to some secluded location for he knows — notice, KNOWS — that any decent person chancing on the scene will intervene with all desperate and even lethal force to rescue the child from the predatory criminal. 

Then, knowing himself to be secure from discovery, the selfish pervert takes sick and sickening thrills from helplessness hoping for rescue futilely, and delights to inflict pain, humiliation, suffering, then takes a final twisted pleasure in putting out the spark of life, maybe further abusing the body before discarding it as if it were rubbish.

Instinct alone, tells us that we understand just what is going on and cries, nay screams: wrong, absurdly wrong. Violation. Wanton despoiling and destruction of the vulnerable and precious.

And we cannot even conceive a society that descends into a state where that is deemed a ho-hum norm. For, we know that long before that happens, family protective instinct will come into play: families and clans will resort to ruthless blood feuds in defence of their young, leading to the collapse of community government. And we all know where a situation of clans and blood feuds ends, a barbaric chaos that is absurd by contrast with a well ordered well governed community.

So, we can see and know that such is wrong and must be wrong on pain of absurdity. In multiple ways.

So much so, that — as has happened over and over here at UD when this same paradigm case has come up again and again — the rhetorical tactics of those who would undermine the principles that ground that cannot come out directly and assert that one is and should be free to destroy a child like that. No, they have to pose on domineering skepticism, they have to refuse to acknowledge that conscience may be a built in moral sense as valid in its own sphere as eyes and ears; with the same proviso that we may be blinded or deafened or mistake one thing for another. They have to turn about the burden of proof, they have to confuse terms and concepts, they have to divert attention from the actual case on the table, and such like. 

Which brings up why not all cases of murder are self-evidently wrong. For, in some cases, sufficient confusion as to human status can be thrown up, or the chaotic consequences can be apparently confined or pushed to fringe groups that can be dehumanised or demonised, or the pretence can be made that the act was legitimate self-defence etc. Abortion for convenience, the abuse of slaves, mass delusions linked to deeply enculturated racism, etc. come to mind.

That is why we need clear, paradigm, self evident cases that starkly reveal the underlying principles. Which, we may then extend to those that are less clear, by way of reformation.

And so we come full circle: it is self-evidently wrong, immoral, perverse, wicked and demonically evil to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child.

If your worldview cannot heartily concur or does not provide a frame that has in it an IS that grounds this clear OUGHT, that worldview is morally absurd, perverse, destructive and dangerous. (One may live above what that worldview would naturally lead to — as conscience is a built-in moral sense, but the view gradually warps and dulls conscience, heart and mind in ways that are analogous to things that blind and deafen.)

As a paradigm example of such destructiveness and absurdity, I cite a notorious case — by way of warning and call to reformation — from Dr Clinton Richard Dawkins, Sci Am, August 1995, citing in a way that draws attention to the core issue:

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . .

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]

To see my point, simply contrast the earlier case from the US DOI of 1776.>>

________________ 

Second, I think this one, from commenter SB is also well worth pondering. For, he aptly replies to some typical objections:

________________

>>  SB, 39:

[PHV]: I think that society could exist, could have rules, and could enforce those rules. That would be a “well-ordered” society for the descriptive value of “well.” I would abhor that society, of course.

You think order could be preserved while the judge, who supports the torturing of babies, rules against parents who want to protect them? You don’t think that would degenerate into a war of all against all?

Are you clear on what it means to be a moral subjectivist? Seems wrong to me is the same thing as bad, under my subjective analysis. Whether there’s a more objective test is what you are trying, and failing, to prove.

No, seems wrong is not the same as is wrong. You are simply wrong about that. “Is” refers to being, which is objective; “seems” refers to the perception of being, which is subjective. I am not trying to prove anything because self-evident truths cannot be proven. The Law of Non-Contradiction is like that. It cannot be proven. You know it immediately, just as you know the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Whoops. “You’d agree with me if you weren’t a bad person” is not a logical argument. It assumes the existence of what you’re trying to prove, making it—again—circular.

Again, you misunderstand. The Natural moral law, like the Law of Non-Contradiction (or the law of causality) cannot be proven. It is the standard by which other things are proven.

Moreover, “men of good will” disagree over “natural moral law” questions all the time.

No, they will not. No, they do not.

Is abortion always wrong?

Yes.

Even if the life of the mother is at stake?

An abortion is the direct taking of a life for the purpose of ending that life. It is always evil. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the medical intervention is to save the life of the mother and the baby is accidentally killed in the process, then that is not abortion and can be morally justified.

Is no one who disagrees with you on that question “of good will”?

It depends on how they react to the truth. Men of good will always follow the light they are given. If they refuse to follow that light, then they are not of good will.

As a practical matter everyone in this conversation feels that it is wrong.

No. Some of us know that it is wrong.

The question we’re trying to answer is, is that because it’s such an extreme example that any functional human being would be socialized to agree with it as a subjective standard, or is there a definable objective standard behind it? I think you’ve abandoned the effort of proving the objective standard—now you’re just rephrasing “it exists” in elaborate ways.

I never hoped to prove that which cannot be proven. I did hope to show that there is such a thing as an objectively good society, which is based on the standard that there is such a thing as a good way for a community to live, which is based on the standard that there is such a thing as a good life for a person. You appear not to agree.

How do you prove it to someone who disagrees with you? (“I feel like you feel the same objective standard I do” is, ironically, a subjective argument, not proof.) How do you distinguish between an objective rule and a consensus subjective rule? Are objective rules mutable over time, or not?

Well, a consensus subjective rule will always tyrannize the minority. (We many agree to enslave you few). On the other hand, the natural moral holds everyone to account—the many, the powerful, and the few. Justice is not possible under any other circumstances.

SB: Or, perhaps you believe that there is no such thing as a good and healthy society or that there is no way of distinguishing it from a decadent or perverse society.

I think those are subjective definitions. Once again, you’re assuming otherwise, not proving otherwise. A transplant from 1905 might consider our society decadent and perverse because we allow the consumption of alcohol and interracial marriage, yet be considered a moral paragon by his own community back in the past. Was he always a monstrous bigot, or did the objective standards change?

Well, it’s easy for you to say that I am not proving anything, because all you have to do is dismiss what is said and claim that it was ineffectual. That doesn’t require much intellectual exertion. In any case, the Natural Moral Law covers all those situations that you mentioned. The consumption of alcohol is not inherently evil. It is the abuse of alcohol that is evil and it is on that basis that the civil law should be based. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with interracial marriage. So, the only issue at stake is whether the society will honor the natural moral law. 

SB: From what I gather, you don’t think it matters how a nation’s people behave as long as each member, including the leaders, gets to create his own morality.

Do I also eat babies and have concentrated molecular acid for blood? I have no idea where you gathered this nonsense. It has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. I have moral preferences. The way other people behave is relevant to those preferences. For example, I prefer freedom to slavery. If my neighbors become slavers, I absolutely think that matters, even if I’m not their target. That’s because I can and do value people who aren’t me—even strangers.

You are totally missing the point. You feel slavery is wrong, but you cannot provide any moral justification for telling others that they shouldn’t enslave. They, like you, are going by their feelings. In like fashion, you cannot tell those who do eat babies that they should stop. 

They feel they should; you feel they should not. 

SB: If, as it turns out, a leader’s subjective morality prompts him to enslave everyone else, then I have to ask: 

Would that be acceptable with you? If not, what is your basis for saying that it would be morally unacceptable for you and for everyone else?

No. My basis would be that I believe slavery is wrong.

So what? The slave master believes the slavery is not wrong. Why should your belief take logical precedence over his belief?

I don’t need an objective standard to hold that belief.

Of course you don’t need an objective standard to hold a subjective belief. That is obvious.

Once I hold it, it is logical for me to take action to implement it. I must weigh that implementation against the moral cost of taking action—such as infringing on others’ sovereignty—but that doesn’t preclude taking action.

You have not yet addressed the issue about the slave master who feels, like you, that it is logical for him to take action against you based on his beliefs. How should this be settled?

In your example, my belief that everyone has a right to be free would vastly outweigh my belief that the leader has a limited right to be self-sovereign, and I would certainly take action to oppose him.

So it is with him. You have settled nothing. He will war against you and you will war against him. Indeed, everyone, based on his individual and self-serving morality, will war against everyone else. Eventually, a dictator will step in to restore order and everyone will be enslaved, Do you not understand that this is the inevitable result of your moral relativism?>>

_________________

This is where ever so many have already reached, and it is where our civilisation is plainly heading.

We need to wake up fast and turn back, lest we plunge over the precipice, as lemmings are said to do.

We desperately need a new Reformation. To which the answer must be the Mordecai moment, three-pointed question: why not now. why not here, why not us?  END