2025-05-28

With Permission of Silence

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

We’ve all seen the image. . . .  We now learn that she “survived”    —->
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gaza-girl-devastated-after-family-killed-israeli-strike

     .

.

.

.

.

.

Meanwhile….

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestinian-child-kidnapped-israel-recalls-soldiers-killing-father-torturing-mother

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


2025-05-21

How Did We Get Here? (Part 3) Are Democracies “Vile”?

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Tim Widowfield

The first eight words in the alleged quotation below by James Madison, below, are false.

Here’s what Madison said about democracy:

Democracy is the most vile form of government . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [The text in boldface is pure fiction.]

The Founders just didn’t trust the ordinary people and deliberately kept them at arm’s length, as can be seen from the way they drafted the Articles of Confederation and then the U.S. Constitution. (Arnheim 2018, p. 25)

Certain conservative authors insist these words from James Madison prove that the framers of the U.S. Constitution distrusted ordinary people and hated democracy. The above example comes from Michael Arnheim (Ph.D., ancient history) who is, according to the editors of the “for Dummies” series, “uniquely qualified to present an unbiased view of the U.S. Constitution.” (Arnheim 2018, back cover)

Uniquely qualified?

James Madison, portrait by Gilbert Stuart

Dr. Arnheim provides no citation for the Madison quote, but you can find the true part in Federalist 10. Since so many versions and editions of the Federalist Papers exist, I’ll cite paragraph numbers rather than page numbers.

Before continuing, however, please be aware that the mischief does not begin and end with the fictional denigration of democracy. Conservatives will often, as Arnheim does, neglect to define the term, knowing that modern readers will conflate the common term “representative democracy” with Madison’s “pure democracy.”

We shouldn’t discuss terms like “constitution,” “republic,” and “democracy” as if they were simple English words. In the context of government, or in this specific case — a history of the U.S. Constitution — these are terms of art. We need to know how the authors at the time defined these terms in order to deal with them honestly. Fortunately, Madison et al. often gave perfectly concise definitions of the terms at hand. On the subject of democracy, he wrote: Continue reading “How Did We Get Here? (Part 3) Are Democracies “Vile”?”


2025-05-13

Trump Is the True Face of American “Democracy”

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

The mask has been cast aside; the neoliberal suavity of the Bidens and Obamas, when pulled away, shows the reality that has been at the core of American foreign policy and capitalism and propaganda all along. But its true face is hideous, so all of us who have all their lives been so enamoured and dulled by the pretence of “freedom” and “human rights” protest in horror, aching for the mask of reassuring illusion to be brought back.

Trump’s barefaced vulgarity – his outright disregard for even the most basic norms of human decency – is, in its own way, refreshing.

I much prefer it to Obama’s sleek duplicities and fake sincerity, beneath which he advanced some of the most vicious imperial designs imaginable – including the hyper-militarisation of the Israeli settler colony – far more effectively than Trump ever could.

Trump’s thuggish demeanour is, in fact, quite liberating.

I read the article that expressed much (not all) of what I have been thinking lately — and it gave me the small leg-up I needed to post again, at least for now:

Dabashi, Hamid. 2025. “Why US Liberals Refuse to Acknowledge That Trump Is a Homegrown Dictator.” Middle East Eye. May 12, 2025. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/us-liberals-refuse-acknowledge-trump-homegrown-dictator-why.

It says almost everything that has been hammering away at me these past few months:

Trump is too obvious, too crass, too vulgar an imperialist. Their first instinct is to disown him as an anomaly. He looks like a Latin American dictator, an African despot, an Oriental tyrant, or a Russian czar.

. . . . He cannot possibly be American. Except he is – more than any of them – representing 77,284,118 Americans just like him, who eagerly rushed to vote him into power.

This is a bizarre intellectual malady on full display in the US, where badly defeated and demoralised liberals refuse to acknowledge that Trump is a 100 percent American phenomenon.

He is a homegrown dictator with unabashed fascistic proclivities, barely able to contain his urges, and surrounded by equally 100 percent American sycophants – worse than any clown or court jester ever conjured from their Orientalist imagination.

. . . . This is all American. “Made in America.” It is not an import. They are making America great again!

. . . . If there is any context for Trump, it is the long and recent history of European fascism – from Hitler and Mussolini to Franco, and now all their heir-apparent lookalikes: Viktor Orban, Matteo Salvini, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, ad nauseam.

. . . . Much closer to Trump are Hitler, Mussolini and Franco – even closer still are the exposed fascistic roots of American so-called democracy.

Go there: go to the roots of America’s claim to democracy, and you will see fascism staring you down.

This is Trump doing exactly what he always said he would. And what he does is backed by his claim to represent the will of the American majority.

And then Hamid Dabashi comes to the raw nerve at the centre of how all this works:

But here is the heart of the paradox: this is not merely the rule of the majority, but the tyranny of the majority – a term made potently insightful by Alexis de Tocqueville in his two-volume diagnosis of the malice and maladies of American democracy, Democracy in America (1835-1840).

The more liberal Americans detest him, the more I appreciate his having exposed the true face of America – unvarnished, with the thick democratic lipstick they have plastered over their tyrannical pigs now smeared and exposed for all to see.

But such characterisations should not descend into ad hominem name-calling. Presidents and other leaders become symbolic, allegorical of the nations that elect or tolerate them.

So it is with American presidents. What do they represent? Who gave them the authority to do what they do? The majority of the electorate, of course. And that majority is the point.

Hamid Dabashi goes on to address a core malignity that Alexis de Tocqueville identified almost two centuries ago: the tyranny of the majority, “or what is perceived to be the majority”. European monarchs had the power to control the lives of their subjects but never their minds. I have written about this a number of times over the years. One book I found of special interest because it detailed the way British and American propaganda had cast its pall over Australia — see, for example, the series of posts on Alex Carey’s Taking the Risk Out of Democracy.

[Tocqueville] wrote: “In America, the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever steps beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy.”

That “daily obloquy” is now called doxxing – a vicious act of intimidation perfected by genocidal Zionists against anyone who dares cross the boundaries of manufactured consent that cast Israel as God’s gift to humanity.

. . . . Propaganda organs of liberal imperialism – of the gaudiest and most dysfunctional sorts – like The New York Times, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal define the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

There may be no visible chains, but the restraints operate through moral and intellectual pressure, daring any would-be dissenter to defy them and speak out.

Tocqueville observed that American “democracy” enslaved the mind, leaving the body to feel free. European despots could only attack a person’s body, but their minds were free and they were able to rise against those despots.

What defines the American predicament is this: how is the opinion of the majority – and thus its unyielding power – manufactured and sustained?

Three ways: through general elections, periodic polling, and, above all, through dominant media outlets.

These institutions manufacture the illusion of majority opinion by demonising critical thought, and by normalising compliance, acquiescence, and subdued fatalism in the face of a cruel fate too deeply internalised to even be recognised.

That is democracy in America.

The article concludes with an editorial disclaimer: The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

They are also my views. I would add one more area not addressed, and one that has been hammering away inside me for some time now, especially since our recent observance of Anzac Day (Australia’s annual day to remember the war dead and war veterans). Why did we — Britain, Australia, the US and the rest — go to war against Germany and then Japan? Why? I had been reading of Japan’s efforts after World War 1 to persuade America, Australia, Britain and France to formalize “racial equality” through the League of Nations that was being nutted out at the time. “We” — our leaders — point blank refused Japan’s request. How was it that whole nations felt such moral outrage that they were prompted to declare war in 1939? How could whole nations be of one mind over an attack on Poland — yet those same nations not feel the slightest twinge of upset over the massacres of Palestinians today? It doesn’t make sense. What is it that has made it unthinkable that anyone among the World War 2 allied nations should question the righteousness of that “war against nazism”? What will future generations, looking back, identify “what it was really all about”?

There was one glimmer of a moment when I really believed, with a little relief and pride, that the Australian government had actually stood up to Indonesia in order to defend the East Timor from invasion. One journalist, John Pilger, at the time wrote cynically that Australian policy was being motivated by the hopes of gaining control of East Timor’s off-shore oil reserves. That was going too far, I and many others thought. Pilger is too much of a lefty, so cynical, he cannot see situations clearly — only through his ideological bias. I was disappointed in Pilger. Years later we learned that Australia had indeed been spying on East Timorese government deliberations and did indeed use their information to demand control of the off-shore oil fields. How easy it was for me and my associates to be swept up in false propaganda myth of our nation fighting for liberty of the oppressed.

(A few days ago I watched an old documentary about how German forces treated peoples they occupied in the 1940s. In response to “terrorist” partisan attacks on them, the German army would slaughter women, children, elderly in villages from where the partisans had come. I would not dare suggest anything similar is happening in the world today among our “friends and allies”, on a far larger scale and not even hidden ….., no?)


2025-05-11

Delay in Vridar blog posting…. another reason

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

This year I resumed full time studies. I am currently engaged in a preparatory year to undertake a Master of Ancient History degree — hopefully next year. It is too early to say whether I will continue with doctoral studies after that.

Studies so far have taken me away from biblical topics, but that’s been very useful. Already I have a wider grasp of different approaches and standards among classicists, a point I will be able to use in future discussions about biblical scholarship. Especially useful has been formal instruction in learning ancient Greek, especially being alerted to the various dialects and differences that sometimes arise between reading literary texts and reading inscriptions. Already so many questions I had after grasping some very basic self-taught competence have been answered.

Hopefully I will find time to post once in a while in the meantime.


2025-05-03

“That’s what it means to be a Jew” — interviewing a West Bank settler

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Images from The Settlers

I transcribed a portion from Louis Theroux’s recent documentary, The Settlers, where he is interviewing Ari, from Texas, now a West Bank settler….

After recalling previous discussions about Ari’s view of the importance of Jewish presence in “the biblical land of Israel” . . . .

Theroux: 50:22 Are you saying that you see Israel as playing a role for modelling a new kind of nationalism, is that right?

Ari: 50:30 I think all that’s happening in the world right now is leading us as a nation to open our eyes to who we are. We are the tip of the spear fighting the battles of America and defending the entire Western world, and not just the Western world – anyone who wants any semblance of liberty and freedom in their lives.

Theroux: 50:52 Nevertheless, there are millions of people up and down the area, Arabs, Muslims, who aren’t living free right now. They’re enclosed without the same rights, without national self-determination, and in many respects feeling besieged, and I just wonder, do you see that?

Ari: 51:10 I don’t have tremendous compassion for a society that has an unquenchable, genocidal, theological, blood-lust. It’s like a death cult.

Theroux: 51:23 It’s easy with a  danger with that kind of characterization of Palestinians to define them as eliminationist, and hateful, and genocidal, … are those the words …?

Ari: 51:32 Yes, I use the word death cult.

. . . . that then permits you to almost create a mirror image of that . . . .

Theroux: 51:35 It’s a death cult… that that then permits you to almost create a mirror image of that, that you say, well, if they want to do that to us, then we need to do that to them.

Ari: 51:45 I think that when you’re living amongst people who have perpetually proven, not only by word, but by deed, that they want your blood spilled in the streets, that they want to murder your children, that they want to slay all of you, kill all of you in the most horrific genocidal way — That all of the polls showed after October 7, that these people who you continuosly call the Palestinian people – that I reject the very premise that they are actually a real nation for a lot of reasons, I mean….

Theroux: 2:15 But the millions of people who have nothing to do with October 7, who actually would just like to live free full lives

Ari: 52:24 If that’s really what they wanted they would have had it a long time ago. They want to wipe Israel off the map. They want every last Jew dead.

Theroux: 52:32 So what’s the answer?

Ari: 52:33 The answer is for us to declare sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, and all of the land of Israel, and Gaza, and to settle Gaza and all Judea and Samaria with Jews in the land of Israel.

Theroux: 52:50 Did the question annoy you?

Ari: 52:52 Annoy me? I hear it so often. And it feels like it’s being addressed again and again and again. Even if the entire world is pointing accusing fingers and gnashing their teeth in rage and anger, we know the righteousness and the truth of our cause, even if we stand alone. That’s what it means to be a Hebrew. That’s what it means to be a Jew. If we know the truth of our cause that’s all we need.


2025-05-02

It’s Still Hard to Post — But Let’s Support Wikipedia

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Tim Widowfield

Like Neil, I’ve found it almost impossible to write anything right now. When I try to write about something “important,” I feel unable to move. On the other hand, when I consider writing something “normal” (like a series on translating Mark, which I’ve been planning), it feels frivolous.

We are in seriously dark times. Of course, we’ve always lived in dark times; it’s just that the darkness mostly lay outside our borders, out in our colonial empire, out in the world we dominate. I’m particularly conscious of the darkness now, as I’m reading The Myth of American Idealism, a recently published book by Nathan J. Robinson and Noam Chomsky. By the way, that link will take you to Bookshop.org. Using them is a nice way to support local bookstores against the onslaught of the billionaires.

What pushed me finally to touch the keyboard again is the recent attacks on Wikipedia by the fascist Trump regime and the fanatically pro-Israel ADL. You can read details here at Law & Crime. The actual crime Wikipedia has committed is the audacity to tell some of the truth about the genocide in Gaza. It isn’t enough to have unrestricted freedom of action and the unlimited right to control the world militarily (“What we say goes!”). No, all media must also be brought to heel. Freedom of thought consists solely in correct thinking. All else must be silenced.

From the article:

Wikipedia has been criticized by people — including Trump ally and unofficial DOGE leader Elon Musk — as of late for allowing what many have perceived to be “woke” information about current events and topics to be edited in.

Reich Chancellor Musk has decided Wikipedia is unfair to Dear Leader and bad for the Fatherland, and has told his followers to stop donating to them.

Even if you have never supported Wikipedia before, please now consider that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. And as our institutions continue to fail us, left and right, we need to support independent media in all its forms.

As soon as I publish this thing, I’m heading over to Wikipedia to drop some dollars.