What would world disarmament have meant for the Europe of Hitler? Satyagraha of MK Gandhi; truthful labor in service of humanity.

Causes of World War II: Susan Heep, Pinterest.

Geneva Disarmament Conference 1932

“This was a success for Hitler because: a. it wrecked the conference b. it left him free to rearm however he wanted c. it drove a wedge between the French and the British d. British politicians, while they were trying to persuade Germany to stay in the Conference, had agreed in principle that the arms clauses of the Treaty of Versailles were too harsh.”

Prelude to World War II and the Partition of British India

Hitler’s virulent anti-Semitism had, since 1933, helped fuel his rise to dictatorial power over Europe, whose aggressive expansion into defenseless Czechoslovakia in 1938 was sanctioned by Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich. On the eve of World War II Chamberlain spoke of his pathetic betrayal as “Peace with Honour” claiming it would bring ‘peace in our time’ Gandhi when asked what he thought about the persecution of Jews, replied, “My sympathies are all with the Jews. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler. Gandhi expressed his tacit support of Chamberlain’s policy and called for simultaneous world disarmament: “I am as certain of it as I am sitting here, that this heroic act would open Herr Hitler’s eyes and disarm him.” To Agatha Harrison he wrote “My participation in the event of war would be no participation.”  Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, By Stanley Wolpert. 

Was the Independence struggle of MK Gandhi against the British Empire a Fascist or a Moral one? Liberty and the Zionist intervention in Palestine.

MK Gandhi is thought to have rejected the Zionist appeal for separate homeland for the Jews in Palestine. However, he made no mention of disavowing property rights related to the practice of individual liberty for the inhabitants of Palestine where there were a substantial population of Jewry. In-fact, MK Gandhi promoted individual liberty as fervently if not more so during his struggle for Independence from British colonial rule commonly referred as Satyagraha.  What he was not prepared to do and rightly so was to be a power broker between the British, Jews and Europe. His coalition to fight Britain was made up of Hindus and Muslims. While the Muslims were a minority, Gandhi felt obligated to offer them the same rights as he wanted for Hindus and thus for all of India.  To blame a servant of God, (he practiced civil disobedience based all most completely on divine ordination) for the offensive behavior of Europe and Britain is unfair and thus illegitimate. Many decry his refusal to come to the aid of Zionists against the barbarity of Hitler, a betrayal that remains intolerable and unforgivable. However, hind sight is twenty-twenty and therefore we of the 21st century are left with important tasks of protecting and promoting obedience of the civil laws, (not rights.) Therefore, societies have to strive to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via embolden governance. In some cases, revolution and the practice of truth as a means of protecting society is the bulwark. The founding owners of legal Constitutions practice this mantra and according to Mahatma Gandhi it is time for everyday people to fight evil and take up its yoke as well. Non-violence is one way of formulating a case against tyranny, oppression, assault,  imperialism and bonded labor (slavery) to secure victory that is determined as opposed to assured.

The return of the Hasidim to Jerusalem, Israel. From irreligion to religious life. MK Gandhi’s understanding of true civilization.

MK Gandhi criticized self-rule, when he declared “A man laboring under the bane of civilization is like a man dreaming. Everything will be done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to fight with one another, they measured between them their bodily strength; now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun. This civilization is irreligion and it has taken such hold on the people in Europe that those who are in it appear to be half-mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the queen of households, wander in the streets or slave away in factories. Modern civilization’s true test lies in the fact that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life.” Machinery, the chief symbol of the modern civilization represents a great sin.”

THE JEWS’, BY GANDHI – FROM HARIJAN, NOVEMBER 26, 1938.

GodharijanNo person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Mussalmans or the Hindus, though as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all and one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. .

All evil is not moral. Political evil takes place when those governed obey governments that permit it.

Alan Wolfe, author of Political Evil and Professor at Boston College, USA.

Alan Wolfe, author of Political Evil and Professor Boston College, USA.

How To Learn the Language of Evil,  Alan Wolfe’s Political Evil offers lessons liberals especially need.

By Michael Ignatieff,

Evil is a moral problem for everyone, difficult to acknowledge in ourselves, hard to understand in others, and difficult to defeat without committing lesser evils. Liberals—I count myself as one—have a special problem with evil, connected to our particular form of self-regard. Liberals like to believe we are tolerant, but evil, by definition, cannot be tolerated. We believe that politics ought to be deliberative, but we can’t deliberate with evil. We think compromise can be honorable, but there are no honorable compromises with evil. We think politics ought to be governed by reason, but evildoers, while they may reason, are not reasonable.  Political evil—genocide, massacre, terrorism, ethnic cleansing—is another matter. Here, Wolfe argues that we are dealing with motives, intentions, which while repellent are political. Killing all Jews is not crazy: It is a plan that will make you master of all you survey. Expelling everyone unlike yourself is not insane: It guarantees eternal domination for your kind. Terrorizing a people you cannot defeat in battle is not pathological: It may force your enemy to yield. Alan Wolfe has written a guide to these quandaries. He distinguishes between evil in general and political evil in particular, and argues that we should think politically about evil because the evil that we can actually do something about is a form of politics and can be defeated only if understood as such.  Moral evil can be understood when laws that govern human beings are disobeyed. There is plenty of evil out there. Adolescents slaughtering other adolescents at a high school, predators molesting children, loners acting out fantasies of revenge and empowerment with automatic weapons. Our various therapeutic and explanatory discourses still leave us without consolation in the face of these murderous frenzies, but, Wolfe argues, we should at least spare ourselves the foolish idea that such evil lurks in all our hearts. The Norwegian killer who sprayed bullets over children at a liberal party summer camp was a psychopath. He is not us and we are not him. He tells us nothing about Europe, about Norwegian society, about anything. It accords him a dignity he does not deserve to explain him. It is appropriate to mourn and remember, and it would be prudent to keep him locked up for good. It is an utter waste of time to give him significance.

So, Wolfe’s first lesson is a very old one, but worth repeating. There is method in apparent madness. The world is not divided between a sane world of deliberative politics and an insane world of apocalyptic violence. It is all politics, all the way down. To call a terrorist attack “senseless” is merely to admit that you have not understood its purpose. Moral precision is a precondition for political precision. Nothing is gained, and much is lost, if, in seeking to mobilize opinion to stop a massacre, you call it genocide. You debase the coinage of outrage. Next time you cry wolf, no one will believe you.

We are indiscriminate in our use of the language of evil, Wolfe argues, because we like what the language does to our own moral standing. It makes us self-righteous. To call others wicked is to give us a moral privilege we may not deserve and a moral permission we are likely to misuse. The language of good and evil only seems to create moral clarity: It actually creates moral entitlement.  Moral clarity mobilizes: Who does not want to enlist on the side of good against absolute evil? But clarity also anaesthetizes. If I am on the side of good, they on the side of evil, what am I not permitted to do? The authors of President Bush’s torture memos claimed the privilege of moral superiority after 9/11 and used it to torture.

Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity by Singh, G.B.

180px-GandhiBehindTheMaskOfDivinityThe book was written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of  Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent and non-violent leader of Indian independence, told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. The book claims that Gandhi emulated racism from the Hindu ideology of caste towards the Blacks of South Africa and the Untouchables, instigated ethnic hatred against foreign communities, and, to this end, was involved in covering up the killing of  American engineer William Francis Doherty.  Singh puts forward that the portrayal of Gandhi as a great leader is “the work of the Hindu propaganda machine” and Christian clergy with ulterior motives; and, furthermore, it was based on irrationality and deception which historians have failed to critically examine.

The author, Colonel Singh, states that he spent 20 years collecting Gandhi’s original writings, speeches and other documents for this research book. An earlier article by the author, Would the Real Gandhi Please Stand Up in AAH Newsletter (publication of African Americans for Humanism) had resulted in protests by an active Black group in South Africa, when a statue of Gandhi was unveiled in central Johannesburg.

The book is organized into 7 parts and 30 chapters. It starts by presenting a majority of earlier publications on Gandhi and the interactions and exposure (if any) of the authors of those publications to Gandhi and his ideology. In the first part, the author starts by explaining the reason for yet another book on Gandhi and then continues by presenting the major previous literary work done on Gandhi including the Gandhi movie in the first part of the book. The book claims that the Christian clergy first started “the Gandhi myth” – they wanted to elevate Gandhi to a 20th-century messiah and then convert him to Christianity, something that would open the floodgate for evangelizing Hindu masses.

The second part deals with Gandhi’s alleged role in War against Blacks during the Bambatha Rebellion (Zulu war) followed by part 3 of the book in which the author talks about the methodology of Satyagraha used by Gandhi to uphold the status of Indians by preaching racial hatred and segregation against South African Blacks. Later parts 4, and 5 consider Gandhi’s politics before and after the Boer War in South Africa, providing examples of what the author sees as racism from Gandhi towards blacks. Singh states that racism against Blacks of South Africa was an integral part of Gandhi’s Satyagraha in South Africa, and he never fought for the rights of the native people. Singh further discusses how Gandhi actively encouraged the British to raise an Indian regiment for use against the Black Zulus, contrary to his image of a non-violent leader. The author also says that Gandhi had accepted the superiority and predominance of the white race, and believed that the upper-caste Indians shared with the Europeans a common Aryan heritage.

Part 6 of the book deals with Gandhi’s alleged caste ideology and black Untouchables of India. This part starts with a chapter on Singh’s views on Hinduism and the claim that it segregates people based on skin-color with the “Blacks ending up at the bottom as Untouchables”. Singh claims that Gandhi received fierce resistance from B.R. Ambedkar as Gandhi continued to play his “racial and ethnic politics against the rights of Untouchables”.

The last part of the book deals with alleged “White Murders” done during Satyagraha movements against the British which Singh contends have been ignored by Gandhian scholars. The book claims that Gandhi was involved in covering up the murder of an American Engineer William Francis Doherty during the campaign against visit of Prince of Wales, Edward the VIII. It also presents the content of original sworn on oath affidavit filed by William Francis Doherty’s wife Annette H. Doherty in which she testified that Gandhi resorted to bribery to cover up the murder. Further, the book talks about Gandhi’s alleged role in support of ethnic cleansing for his defense of Adolf Hitler, his “condemning” of Jews and British for not committing “collective suicide” by surrendering to the Nazis and also his condemning of Sikhs for not accepting the partition of Punjab in 1947 over their own massacre and uprooting.

Birkat Cohanim, Priestly Blessing. Avraham, Abraham Fried.

Birkat Kohanim: (I was a child, now I’m old, and I have never seen a righteous person in need of bread.)

 

 

 יברכך ה” וישמרך יאר ה” פניו אליך ויחונך ישא ה” פניו אליך וישם לך שלום ..ירושלים . ישראל .יהודי
Bless the “Yar Oishmrc the” face you Oihonc carry the “face to you and put in
you peace .. Jerusalem. Israel, Jew.

 

 

 

 .

 

 

Gandhi on moral rights and Jerusalem. Destiny or conflict?

Jerusalem. Yerushalayim to all.

Jerusalem. Yerushalayim to all.

In Young India on March 23, 1921, MK Gandhi wrote, Britain has made promises to the Zionists. The latter have, naturally, a sacred sentiment about (Jerusalem) Palestine. The Jews, it is contended, must remain a wandering race unless they have obtained possession of Palestine. I do not propose to examine the soundness or otherwise of the doctrine underlying the proposition. All I contend is that they cannot possess Palestine through a trick or a moral breach. The British Government could not dare have asked a single Muslim soldier to wrest control of Palestine from fellow-Muslims and give it to the Jews. Palestine, as a place of Jewish worship, is a sentiment to be respected and the Jews would have a just cause of complaint against Mussulman idealists if they were to prevent Jews from offering worship as freely as themselves. By no canon of ethics or war, therefore, can Palestine be given to the Jews as a result of the War. In an interview MK Gandhi gave to London’s Jewish Chronicle in early October 1931, he stated that “Anti-Semitism is really a remnant of barbarism,” instead explaining that Zionism in its spiritual sense is a lofty aspiration. By spiritual sense I mean they should want to realize the Jerusalem that is within. I can understand the longing of a Jew to return to Palestine, and he can do so if he can without the help of bayonets. In that event he would go to Palestine peacefully and in perfect friendliness. The real Zionism of which I have given you my meaning is the thing to strive for, long for and die for. It is the abode of God. The real Jerusalem is the spiritual Jerusalem. Thus he can realize this Zionism in any part of the world.

Rabbinic Jerusalem.

Rabbinic Jerusalem.

-scripturenot