I read this little essay over the weekend which drifted in with the e-mails like unwanted snow in Springtime. I’ve seen this before, and I’m sure you have too (refresh your memory HERE at The Urban Legends Page), but here it is with the correct attribution for a change:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
- From bondage to spiritual faith;
- From spiritual faith to great courage;
- From courage to liberty;
- From liberty to abundance;
- From abundance to complacency;
- From complacency to apathy;
- From apathy to dependence;
- From dependence back into bondage.
That’s from a speech given in 1943: “Industrial Management in a Republic” by H. W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Company and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers. He quotes the “Tytler Cycle” (also known as the “Fatal Sequence”) of Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee (15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) a Scottish-born British lawyer and writer. (Most of the e-mails you’ve seen the last 9 years mis-spell his name as “Tyler.”)
The e-mail asked in it’s title where I would guess we are in the cycle. Several of the replies in the body of the forwarded letter had various guesses from complacency to apathy to the dependence phases. Personally, I think we’re split between the apathy and dependence phases; with about 48% apathy and 52% dependence.
That’s the same margins for the last presidential election, if you missed the reference.
That brings me around to this article from Israel Policy Form Blog:
Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.”
He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place.“Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory,” the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel’s position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel’s willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
Yedioth also reports that Obama is conveying his displeasure with the new Israeli government in several ways. “US administration officials informed Netanyahu that President Obama will not be able to meet with him in early May, while the AIPAC conference is held in Washington.
“Sources in Washington also said that the Obama administration would not continue the tradition that developed during the Bush administration of hosting Israeli premiers many times during the year, sometimes with just a phone call’s advance notice.”
So far neither the White House or the Israeli government has commented on the report which, it should be noted, comes from Shimon Shiffer, one of Israel’s most highly respected journalists
So, this is not a mere change in Israel policy. This is a radical change; a sea change; a quantum shift in Israeli policy by the United States. We are not just going to work with and negotiate with the Israeli’s on Mideast Policy — we’re going to dictate our policy to them and ram it down their throats, whether they like it or not.
Huh. Who’s the Imperialist now, President Obama?
Emanuel told a reporter there will be a two-state solution in Palestine within four years, no matter who is in charge in Israel.A Palestinian state would have a standing army which would be Iranian in every important aspect with heavy weaponry at Israel’s borders. As a state, Palestine could have the equivalent of a Foreign Legion. Volunteers without limit could mass on Israel’s borders.
I noted in a post almost a year ago that our current President makes decisions that can only be termed “thoughtless,” if not seriously impaired HERE. In fact, at the time, I accused him of being on drugs.
I no longer feel that’s the case. I don’t think he’s smart enough for drugs — it has to be pure stupidity. But that brings up the larger question; If he’s not making these decision, who is?
I suspect strongly that Rahm Emanuel is a lot closer to President Obama and a lot more the stronger partner in their relationship. Does he control the President –I doubt that. But President Obama’s weak leadership ability and indecisiveness can be easily manipulated by someone bent on whatever agenda they may have.
National Union chairman Ya’acov “Ketzele” Katz sent a letter to White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel last week admonishing him not to forget his Jewish and Israeli origins. Katz’s missive came in response to a reported verbal exchange between Emanuel and an unidentified American Jewish leader.
In the letter, a Hebrew version of which was provided to by Katz’s parliamentary aide, Katz wrote: “For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US, and all the more so from an Israeli Jew who has succeeded in being appointed White House chief-of-staff.”
During the Clinton administration he directed the details of the 1993 Rose Garden signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords, down to the choreography of the handshake between prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat.
A handshake that appeared forced, pointless, and was eventaully an embarrassment for the Clinton Administration. So from that standpoint, it certainly seems both the handshake and the new 2-state forced solution will both be the work of the same man.
Is there anyone else who would fit into this scenario? A liberal, perhaps a Jew as well, who has goals and aims close to the Obama Administration, and no great love for Israel? Who believes in that “One World’ theory, and doesn’t care what other people think?
George Soros, anyone? That’s complete speculation on my part, but it would fit the theory. Obama’s not smart enough to plan this all himsef, and Emanuel has nether the charm nor the political pull to make this happen, although Soros certainly has both the single-mindedness and the money to make it happen.
And you can bet it’s going to happen. Obama doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him right now, and to all appearances he’s trying to ram his aganda through Congress in his first term — very likely because he know it’s very unlikely he’ll win a second term.
Bondage. Just who is in bondage, exactly? If it’s America, I think the Tea Parties are a good first beginning to reverse that trend.
If it’s the decision makers of the Obama Administration, you have to wonder who’s giving those orders.