Apr 032024
 


“There will be no peace in Israel’s foreseeable future” predicts our guest Jacob Peretz.

His pessimism is based not only on current events or on the history of the region, but also on personal experience. His regret over saving the life of a wounded Egyptian soldier during the Yom Kippur war speaks to a growing sense of hopelessness regarding any prospects of peace or brotherhood between Jews and those who relentlessly disparage and attack them.

In speculating beyond the “foreseeable” future, Jacob notes that there are forty-eight Arab states in the United Nations, states that do not have any interest in pursuing peace with Israel. In making this observation, he has also identified the fundamental evil nature of the United Nations, which was described by Ayn Rand many decades ago (and not in reference to Israel):

“There is no margin of error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression.

“Who but a concrete-bound epistemological savage could have expected any other results from such an ‘experiment in collaboration’? What would you expect from a crime fighting committee whose board of directors included the leading gangsters of the community?”

What we need is not a “United Nations,” but an international organization of “United Democratic Nations,” suggests Jacob, and until such a body emerges, any organization with members opposed to freedom and democracy can only be a threat to peace, not a vehicle for peace.

Meanwhile, as the global debate continues to rage, Israel’s military efforts continue to escalate – demonstrating that predictions of “no peace in the foreseeable future” are proving to be Just Right, as tragic as that reality may be.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

Mar 272024
 


In his March 4 essay entitled Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus* – The Chronicle of Zionist lies and their implosion foreseen, Salim Mansur concludes that the Balfour Declaration which created the state of Israel has no legal standing.

Given Israel’s current military actions in Palestine and the recent International Court of Justice‘s (ICJ) provisional judgement finding it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, events suggest that Israel’s “false history” is rapidly catching up with its present.

That history includes the publication of Theodor Herzl‘s book, ‘The Jewish State’ with its “plan” for Zionism, how the Balfour Declaration was implemented, the suppression of the King-Crane Commission report, the Alfred Dreyfus case and the controversial opinions of figures like Edwin Montagu.

When Salim suggests that “a settlement will come within the context of a false history,” he is not solely referring to any possible ‘court’ settlements regarding the state of Israel, but to the inevitable continuum of history. Although various historical narratives are often shown to be false, actual historical events themselves nevertheless unfold on the reality of the past, not on the political fictions. “It’s karma.”

Even when not recognized as such, the reality of truth exerts its own deterministic force against intentions and efforts to hide truths that, given enough time, eventually surface. Since the study of history is a discipline dealing with related events through passages of time, an accurate history becomes an indispensable necessity in establishing any understanding of the present.

Global pressures and public opinion against Israel continue to build, and now even include Donald Trump‘s cautionary warning to wrap up its mission in Palestine. Whether or not Israel maintains (or perhaps improves) its status and international respect as a state is unpredictable. But a “settlement will come” and it will be interesting to see if that settlement proves to be one that is Just Right – irrespective of any false histories.

* Latin “False in one, false in all.”

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

Mar 202024
 


“In politics, perception is reality, the truth doesn’t matter.”

Given the broad acceptance of this view of politics, it should not be surprising that so many good people see politics as an evil. They thus avoid getting involved in a process that affects everyone’s life whether they are interested in politics or not.

But this viewpoint is itself a form of political propaganda because in reality the truth does indeed matter in politics, so much so that political interests which are not aligned with truth go to such great lengths to hide and/or misrepresent the truth. Those political views are broadly identified as coming from the Left, which represents many variants of collectivism.

For those on the Right (which represents individualism, freedom, and capitalism), the current state of politics has become so irrational and beyond understanding that it is almost impossible to accept that the tyranny we are experiencing is real. “Everything is upside down or totally backwards,” has become a familiar refrain expressing this frustration and disbelief.

To understand the madness of the political Left, it is necessary to know how those on the Left think. One of the most difficult concepts to grasp is that those on the Left are strictly ideological, not philosophical. Ideology originates strictly in the mind, unconcerned with the facts of reality. A working philosophy on the other hand, is disciplined by the facts of reality.

In philosophy, these two opposing ways of thinking are contrasted as the ‘primacy of consciousness’ (in which reality is not perceived by consciousness but is created by consciousness) and the ‘primacy of existence’ (in which reality exists irrespective of anyone’s consciousness).

In politics, it is the Left that relies on ideology, while the Right relies on philosophical principles.

Consequently, this conflict between Left and Right manifests itself in a battle of definitions and concepts, ranging from the definition of freedom to the definition of democracy. While those on the Left are obsessed with “defending democracy,” many on the Right insist that freedom is the primary value to be defended.

While freedom is indeed the primary value, the surprising truth is that freedom and democracy go hand-in-hand.

Unfortunately, even when the truth is told, most people cannot recognize it or distinguish it from all of the false perceptions about politics. To be understood in a light that is Just Right, truth must be discerned; it requires a process of thought and discipline that too few understand: philosophy.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

Israel—Beyond the pale

 Governance, Latest, Law, Politics, Video  Comments Off on Israel—Beyond the pale
Mar 182024
 


From the 19th-century Pale of Settlement, to the writings of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, to the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, Professor Salim Mansur and Robert Vaughan delve into the significance of Zionism’s history and the establishment of Israel in comprehending contemporary events in the Middle East.

► Salim’s Substack salimmansur.substack.com
► Robert’s Substack robertvaughan.substack.com

Your financial support is always appreciated and is what makes our programming possible.
E-Transfer your donation to feedback@justrightmedia.org
Or via PayPal

851 – Political atheism—the loss of faith in democracy

 Comments Off on 851 – Political atheism—the loss of faith in democracy
Mar 132024
 


Could you be a ‘political atheist’ without even knowing it?

Political atheists are those who have either completely lost their faith in what they believed to be the democratic system, or never had such faith in the first place. Unfortunately, most of these people tend to be found on the Right.

Unlike those on the Left who remain eternally and consistently politically active and therefore monopolize the electoral process, too many on the Right remain uninvolved in any meaningful political process. They may vote during elections from time to time, but even then, they end up voting for candidates of the Left – the Leftist they consider to be the ‘lesser of a given number of evils.’ Even when a true identifiable freedom candidate of the Right is on the ballot, most ‘right-wingers’ still vote Left: “He’ll never get elected.”

And then there are those who never vote or never participate in politics whatsoever. Taken together, these voters and non-voters alike can be considered to be ‘political atheists’ in that they really have no faith in the possibility that anything positive can result from politics. Given the zeitgeist of the day, this is an understandable, though false, belief.

The one reality about politics that no one can escape is the fact that even if you’re not interested in politics, politics is always interested in you. Those who regard themselves as ‘apolitical’ are in fact no less political than any political zealot. Being ‘apolitical’ is just another political ideology. Continue reading »

850 – The spoken to—Censorship’s true target

 Comments Off on 850 – The spoken to—Censorship’s true target
Mar 062024
 


Once again, Canada’s politicians are on the ‘banning hate speech’ bandwagon, this time in the guise of a piece of legislation being introduced into parliament as Bill C-63.

The proposals contained in Bill C-63 are so bizarre and outrageous that most would dismiss them outright. Like something out of a science-fiction horror fantasy, the bill allows the government to convict, fine, and imprison ‘for life’ people who have not committed any speech offense, but who may do so in the future. Seriously.

How are such people to be identified? Through a ‘complaint’ system in which the identity of the complainant is kept a secret. The complainant can be anyone. As explained by Ezra Levant, “a person may lay an information if he fears that another person will commit a speech offense in the future.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of Bill C-63’s unconscionable and immoral proposals.

But more frightening than the contents of the bill itself are the people who would even allow themselves to entertain such evil. Former Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, who drafted the law, has announced that the government also has a “nuclear option” by being able to make it impossible to access any specific website in the country.

The Trudeau government’s obsession with regulating and censoring the internet suggests that he and his government greatly fear the truth. Truth is, after all, what is being eliminated from any allowable public discussion.

The real immorality of censorship is not just in the fact that it violates the fundamental right of someone to speak freely (which it does) but also because it violates the fundamental rights of those who wish to hear and listen freely. Censorship is less about the speaker than it is about the ‘spoken to’. The speaker is already in possession of the truth; the ‘spoken to’ may not be aware of the truth, and that’s how the politicians of the Left want to keep it.

Given that the Left is always unable to defend its ideology on intellectual or moral grounds, censorship is a great way to avoid that responsibility: “When persuasion fails, just use force.” Censorship is the perfect weapon of violence for those consumed with irrational hatreds that they do not wish to have exposed.

This should not be surprising because when it comes to ‘hate,’ the Left hates individualism, freedom, free speech, private property rights, justice, capitalism, and anybody or anything that is Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

849 – Applied philosophy—the practicality of freedom

 Comments Off on 849 – Applied philosophy—the practicality of freedom
Feb 282024
 


In their struggle against tyranny, many dismiss ‘philosophy’ while calling for ‘practical’ solutions to a condition that is wholly the consequence of ideas – and ideology. Given that the predominant zeitgeist of today’s culture is primarily on the Left, it should not be surprising that the field of philosophy has been largely discredited and dismissed as a failed subjective approach to the problems and challenges of life. However, this is a tragic error.

Reality dictates that one cannot possibly separate the philosophical from the practical without encountering a contradiction. If the ‘theory’ does not match the ‘practice’ then the ‘theory’ is no longer valid and cannot be regarded as such. The proper response is not to dismiss all ‘theory’ out of hand, but to formulate a theory that does indeed match the practice.

In the fields of ethics and politics, ‘theory’ is often equated with ‘philosophy’ or ‘ideology.’ Each of these terms is properly associated with modes of thinking that lead to certain intended outcomes or results.

So why do so many applied ‘theories’ fail to result in their intended outcomes? For a simple reason: the ‘theories’ are based on a mode of thinking philosophically referred to as the “primacy of consciousness” which stands in direct opposition to the “primacy of existence.” Continue reading »