Think Truth
hot topics
excerpts from wither zionism?, and war and mayhem.
contact Ernst Rodin M.D.
think truth home
 

Contents


 
Preface .............................................................6

Chapter 1 The Maccabean Era ..........................9

Chapter 2. Roman occupation and the fall
                       of Jerusalem ..............................28

Chapter 3. The origin of Zionism .......................50

Chapter 4. Globalism ........................................84

Conclusion .......................................................97

Bibliography ...................................................105

 
 
 
 

CHAPTER 1

The Maccabean Era

At that time there appeared in Israel a group of renegade Jews, who incited the people. ‘Let us enter into a covenant with the Gentiles round about,’ they said, ‘because disaster, upon disaster has overtaken us since we segregated ourselves from them’ (I Macc.:1).
 
     When one reads the history of the Maccabean era, which comprises approximately 100 years from 166 to 63 B.C., one cannot help but experience a profound sense of déjà vu. History does repeat and the only question for today is: will the outcome be similar? To prevent the disasters of the past from happening again the Maccabees have to be studied dispassionately and the mistakes which were made have to be exposed. Inasmuch as the two books of Maccabees are not part of the regular Bible but are contained in the Apocrypha, they have not received the wide circulation that might otherwise have occurred. The glorification of the Maccabean era is directly responsible not only for Zionism, but also its current problems. In 1896 when Herzl wrote his programmatic pamphlet Der Judenstaat he stated “The Maccabees will rise again.” They have, and they are behaving exactly as in the days of old. The following brief synopsis was culled from the two books of Maccabees, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and The Cambridge Ancient History.
     As far as the popular version of the events is concerned, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV, desecrated the temple in Jerusalem and forbade the Jewish religion. As a result the Jews rebelled under Matthatias. His son Judas Maccabeus defeated Antiochus’ armies, liberated Jerusalem, cleansed the temple and instituted the feast of Hanukkah in commemoration of the event. Judas’ brothers, Jonathan and subsequently Simon, succeeded through military conquests in restoring the country to the size of David’s kingdom and freeing it from Syrian overlordship. This rendering of events is true, but it presents only a partial account of what had happened and most importantly omits the reasons for Antiochus’ behavior as well as for the successes of Jewish arms.

     According to the first book of Maccabees, the difficulties the Jews experienced with the authorities emerged rather gradually and were initially not due to oppression but a result of the strong pull Hellenistic culture exerted on the locals. In the wake of Alexander the Great’s victories in the East the Macedonians had settled their veterans and other colonists from the Greek speaking world in the land. They brought along Greek culture and philosophy which began to permeate all walks of life.
     The Greeks, who firmly believed in mens sana in corpore sano (a healthy mind in a healthy body), established gymnasia not only in the larger cities but also smaller ones. These served as venues for athletic competitions and the local youths obviously wanted to participate on an equal footing. The Greeks had no problem with that but training and competitions were held in the buff, which immediately established the ancestry. Is it surprising that young Jews wanted to blend in with the rest of the crowd? So the pact with the Lord, as evidenced by absence of foreskin, was renounced, or as the Bible puts it: “They removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant. They intermarried with Gentiles, and abandoned themselves to evil ways [ I Macc. 1:15].” The process was apparently similar to nineteenth century Europe and presentday America where assimilation was, and is, viewed with a great deal of concern by religious authorities. The first book of Maccabees then goes on to relate how Antiochus, despoiled the Jerusalem temple upon his return from a campaign in Egypt, apparently out of sheer wickedness, turned the town into a Greek city, and declared that all of his subjects were to become one people under one law. Keeping the Sabbath and circumcision of the male offsprings were punishable by death. On the 15th of Kislev (December) in 167 B.C. the “abomination of desolation” was set up on the altar of the temple. Speculation has it that it was a statue of Zeus in the likeness of Antiochus whose surname Epiphanes translated into “God Manifest.” “On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the pagan altar which was on top of the altar of the Lord [ I Macc.1:59].” The date of December 25 was chosen because it coincided with the ancient Festival of Lights which celebrated the return of the sun after the winter solstice. Pagan altars were then erected throughout Judea and “unclean beasts were to be offered in sacrifice.” This is the source of the short version of the causes for the revolt which tends to be dispensed to tourists.

     A more detailed and, therefore, more accurate account can be found in Maccabees II. A quarrel had broken out between Onias, the high priest, and Simon, the temple administrator, over financial matters. It must now be said that the book was written by Onias’ partisans and we don’t have Simon’s version of the events. Since Onias stood his ground on the issue of how to regulate the city market, Simon took his case to the governor of Syria who was in charge of the region. He told him that the Jerusalem temple contained untold riches and, due to what would now be called “creative book keeping techniques,” the king was in essence being defrauded. When this information was relayed to the king ( Seleucus IV 187-176 B.C.), he sent his chief minister, Heliodorus, to Jerusalem to get at the truth of the matter. Onias assured him that whatever deposits existed in the temple were held in trust for widows and orphans, while another portion belonged to Hyrcanus, the son of a highly esteemed family. Simon’s allegations were, therefore, pure lies.
     Heliodorus, not quite satisfied, employed President Reagan’s “trust but verify” rule and set a date for inventory to be taken. This caused great distress in the city because the temple functioned also as the main financial institution and depositors were afraid of losing considerable sums of money to the royal fiscus. This was, by the way, also the reason why the Jewish authorities became so upset about two hundred years later when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers and declared that they had turned the temple into a “den of thieves.”....

     ....In summary, one must conclude that feuds between Jews themselves had brought on Roman occupation. The Romans had, in this particular instance, not come as conquerors but had actually been invited as peacemakers. They had initially no interest to shoulder the burden of administering the country themselves. Divide et impera (divide and rule) was their motto. A loyal Jewish king would have been their preference. All he would have had to do was to refrain from inciting war against Rome and content himself with keeping civil law and order. Under those circumstances, the religion would have been safe and the temple would have prospered. This reading of history is borne out by subsequent events.

 
 
 
 

CHAPTER 2

Roman Occupation and the Fall of Jerusalem

     The popular version in regard to the fall of Jerusalem tends to be that the Jews were oppressed by the Romans. They rose to gain their liberty, were defeated, the temple was burned and the people were sold into slavery. The result was 2000 years of exile from which the Jewish people were redeemed only in the twentieth century.
     As is common in popular versions of one’s country’s history, heroism and victimization tend to be emphasized while historical accuracy becomes the loser. Versions of this type also paint “the Jews” as a homogenous group with common goals, which never was, nor is now, accurate. It may therefore come as a surprise to some that the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and especially the loss of the temple, were quite unnecessary and represent another selfinflicted wound. The disaster was not due to the conduct of patriots but that of chauvinistic zealots. To blame the Romans exclusively, without examining the reasons which drove them to their actions, is not merely a disservice to history. It is also harmful and dangerous for the future when one ignores the latent chauvinistic streak in some members of Jewish society which gets masked under the noble names of liberty and religion. Inasmuch as these passions can erupt again at any time, and the general public is quite uninformed about what really happened in A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem will be summarized here....

     ....Are there any lessons to be learned or will the disasters, so eloquently described by Josephus, repeat themselves? The state of Israel is now engaged in a rerun of ancient history and at this time one wonders whether or not the appropriate lessons have been learned. Zionism was founded on the model of the Maccabees but relatively few people seem to have read the events of those times either in the Apocrypha or in Josephus and are content to merely celebrate the miracle of Hanukkah. It has never been more true than today, that those who don’t know their history and believe instead in romantic myths, will be forced to repeat it. Inasmuch as weapons of mass destruction exist nowadays in that part of the world and America is committed to the defense of Israel, the knowledge of these ancient events – rather than the myths about them, which are steadily repeated – is vitally important for Jew and Gentile alike in the U.S. as well as in Israel. All of us are going to suffer the consequences if we let ourselves be guided by the propaganda which has evolved around these occurrences rather than taking the time to examine the events as recorded in the Bible and by Josephus.
     The disasters which befell the Jewish people 2,000 years ago were not predestined; they could have been prevented numerous times before and even during the wars. Hate, greed and lust for power drove a few fanatics to exercise dominion over the truly religious and God-fearing people, thereby taking themselves and everybody else to ruin. These facts must be exposed and faced honestly. To regard the events of the Jewish wars against the Greeks and later the Romans simply as pursuit of liberty or religious freedom is wrong! Those who knowingly promote this propaganda may well lay the foundation for the next catastrophe.

 
 
 
 

CHAPTER 3

The Origin Of Zionism

     One might assume that the struggle for a return of the Jews to Palestine, and therefore to ancient Israel, was initiated by Jews. The fervent wish to meet “next year in Jerusalem” is, after all, uttered regularly as part of religious ceremonies. Nevertheless, Jews were quite content to wait until the Lord’s time had come. He would then send the Messiah, who in turn would lead them back into the promised land. Two hundred years ago there was no striving for nationhood. Jews in Poland and Russia were organized in their own communities under rabbinic law and those living in Central and Western Europe were struggling for “emancipation” – namely the lifting of government restrictions on life in the Diaspora. The question arises, therefore, who was responsible for this yearning for nationhood, and for what reason? At first blush one might say Herzl and anti-Semitism but that is not the case. One has to go back another one hundred years to revolutionary France.
     During the period of the Directorate and after his victorious campaign in Italy, the twenty-nine year old general Bonaparte found himself at loose ends in Paris. There was, however, still a war with England and Napoleon was appointed to oversee and command the planned invasion. A close look at France’s resources convinced him that this was an impossibility because “Britannia ruled the waves” and the French fleet would be no match. He suggested, therefore, to strike at England in the East by occupying Egypt and threatening her routes to India. The Directorate agreed to the plan because they were just as happy to get him out of town before he could endanger their power. Napoleon set sail for Egypt with his army, as well as a retinue of scientists. Egypt was conquered and the scientific discipline of Egyptology was born. But in August of 1798, Nelson and his British tars sank “Bonie’s” fleet at Abukir and he was stranded. He then began to administer the country, but since it actually belonged to Turkey, Constantinople declared war on France. In February of the following year Napoleon marched into Syria. He got as far as Acre, where he had his comeuppance. The fortress, aided by the British fleet, withstood his siege for three months. Without support from home, Napoleon had to break off the siege and march back to Egypt. Militarily, the expedition had been a disaster. He immediately returned thereafter to France, without his army, where his political career flourished to the extent that he eventually crowned himself Emperor. As an aside, one might mention that the rather high opinion of him – which is held in some circles today – was not uniformly shared in his lifetime when he was more commonly referred to as “the scourge of Europe.” The Parisian broadsheets which were passed out in March of 1815 after Napoleon’s escape from Elba speak volumes about the nature of the human race. Their titles are reprinted in Napoleon the Final Verdict by Haythornthwaite et al:
 
The tiger has broken out of his cage.
The Ogre has been three days at sea.
The Wretch has landed at Fréjus.
The Bussard has reached Antibes.
The Invader has arrived in Grenoble.
The General has entered Lyons.
Napoleon slept at Fontainebleau last night.
The Emperor will proceed to the Tuilleries today.
His Imperial Majesty will address his loyal subjects tomorrow.
 
     Vox populi, vox dei? Or rather: “You just have to go with the flow” and “Nothing succeeds like success!”
     In its heyday, revolutionary France had become La Grande Nation and she was determined to bring nationhood, freedom, and justice to all the other “oppressed” peoples of Europe who were dominated by Austrians, Russians and Prussians. As an aside, one might mention that only the terminology has changed. What used to be called oppression goes under the name of “human rights abuses” nowadays. This is the point where Jews come into play. While Napoleon was at Acre, he composed a “Letter to the Jewish Nation.” It was to be issued from “General headquarters, Jerusalem, 1st Floreal, April 20th, 1799, in the year 7 of the French Republic.” The title was:
Buonaparte, Commander In-Chief Of The Armies Of The French Republic In Africa And Asia, To The Rightful Heirs Of Palestine.
     The salient portions are:
 
Israelites, unique nation, whom, in thousands of years, lust of conquest and tyranny have been able to deprive only of their ancestral lands, but not of name and national existence! [This is followed by the quote of Is. 35:10 which promises return to Zion] Arise, then with gladness, ye exiled! A war unexampled in the annals of history, waged in self-defense by a nation whose hereditary lands were regarded by its enemies as plunder to be divided, arbitrarily and at their convenience by a stroke of the pen of Cabinets, avenges its own shame and the shame of the remotest nations, long forgotten under the yoke of slavery, and also, the almost two thousand year old ignominy put upon you, and, while time and circumstances would seem to be least favorable to a restatement of your claims or even to their expression, and indeed to be compelling their complete abandonment, it offers to you at this very time, and contrary to all expectations, Israel’s patrimony!

The young army with which Providence has sent me hither, led by justice and accompanied by victory, has made Jerusalem my headquarters and will, within a few days, transfer them to Damascus, a proximity which is no longer terrifying to David’s city…

 
     It continues in this vein urging the Israelites as “rightful heirs” to “arise and take what is freely given” to them but to “hasten” because the time is now and the moment may not arrive for another thousands of years.
     This document, which can be found on the Internet, is remarkable not only for its content. People who have had the misfortune to live under Hitler will immediately recognize the hyperbole and what Klemperer has called in his diaries the “Lingua Tertii Imperii” (language of the Third Reich). Substitute for France, Germany which has to shake off the yoke of shame and slavery of the Versailles treaty, exchange “Cabinets” for “Plutocrats” but keep “Providence,” “the just cause,” as well as “self defense” and this could have been written in Berlin just prior to World War II. Obviously it would not have been addressed to the Jews because the roles were now reversed but to the nations who in Nazi ideology lingered under Jewish yoke.
     But “Providence” had other plans. As mentioned, Acre defied Napoleon and the “victorious army” had to beat an ignonimious retreat. Nevertheless, the seeds were sown and Gentiles as well as Jews watered them thereafter. What motivated Napoleon to write a letter of this type? Was it just love for Jews and the Lord? This is unlikely. Although a sense of justice may well have played some role, he was foremost a first-class politician and his prime goal was to annoy the British. If he could pry lose the English and Austrian Rothschilds, who financed the war against France, he would have won, or so he probably thought. A two-thousand year old injustice would have made good propaganda but probably had little to do with Realpolitik. As an aside, one might mention that the Rothschild family hedged their bets, and the Parisian members supported Napoleon.
     The Christians, mainly Protestants, who subsequently championed Jewish nationalism and a return to the homeland, had a different reason. Not only had the injustice to be redressed, but by helping the Lord with returning the Jews to Palestine, they would bring about the second coming of Christ, which, as per prophecy, is contingent upon the ingathering of the dispersed. Whether or not the rekindling of Jewish nationalism was a good idea will be decided by events in this new century, but the fact that biblical prophecies should have guided nineteenth and twentieth century politicians is deeply disturbing. Will somebody instigate a battle of Armageddon so that Jesus can come down and save the righteous? These self-fulfilling prophecies have nothing to do with genuine religion and are outright dangerous.
     As far as the Jews were concerned, even if Napoleon had reached Jerusalem and issued his proclamation, they would not have flocked en masse to the Holy Land. The wealthy ones clearly had nothing to gain from moving into a swampy, mosquito infested desert, and even the poor ones were not interested because they believed in the Lord’s and not Napoleon’s timetable. The supposed yearning for a return to the ancient homeland was much overestimated by all the crusaders for justice....
 
 
 
 

The Original and Final
Balfour Declaration

     From then on the Zionist cause languished until WWI produced the famed Balfour Declaration in 1917. The antecedents and infighting that accompanied the birth of this document were carefully researched by Sanders and presented under the title The High Walls Of Jerusalem.The war was not going all that well for the British at that time and having the Jews as allies, especially the rich and influential ones in America, was appealing. There were also military considerations. Taking Palestine away from the Turks would secure the northern approach to the Suez canal and this would also facilitate overland routes to India. General Allenby as well as Lawrence (of Arabia) were already poised to give the Sultan’s troops, which were commanded by German staff officers, serious problems. In addition, Lord Balfour the Foreign Secretary, as well as Lloyd George the Prime Minister, were devout Protestants and therefore very much in favor of redressing a 2000 year old injustice by helping the Jews to return to the Promised Land. As believers in Biblical prophecy, they were also convinced that this would usher in the second coming of Christ.
     Balfour had been a long-standing friend of Chaim Weizmann, who was then in charge of the English Zionist Federation, as well as Lord Rothschild who had also become a declared Zionist. Thus, the time was ripe to energize the quest for a Jewish homeland and Balfour asked for a draft proposal he could submit to the War Cabinet. Eventually a document emerged, drawn up by members of the Zionist organization, which was forwarded as a letter by Rothschild to Balfour and made public as a reply to Rothschild. It read: “His Majesty’s Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national Home for the Jewish people” and that “His Majesty’s Government will use their best efforts to secure the achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which the Zionist Organization may desire to lay before them.” Success at last, or so it seemed.
     The difficulty arose not with the War Cabinet, but another member of the government and its only Jew. Edwin Montagu, the recently appointed Secretary of State for India, had profound misgivings. He produced a lengthy memorandum for the government in which he stated:
 
Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman…. I assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews, and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mohammedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test.
 
     He recommended that Rothschild be told “that the Government will be prepared to do everything in their power to obtain for Jews in Palestine complete liberty of settlement and life on an equality with the inhabitants of that country who profess other religious beliefs. I would ask that the Government should go no further.”
     One may wonder at this point why Montagu had been so incensed over this proposal by his coreligionists. He was the son of Samuel Montagu, with whom Herzl had dealings during the years of 1895-98. Sir Samuel was at that time not only a Member of Parliament but also a person of great wealth and influential in British financial circles. Herzl was convinced he would be able to harness him for the cause and after their first meeting over dinner in Sir Samuel’s house, Herzl wrote in his diary: “A wonderful old chap (prächtiger alter Bursche), the best Jew I have yet seen.” His opinion changed, however, when Sir Samuel was not forthcoming with the money intended to buy off the Sultan, and by 1898 Herzl referred to him, as well as the other Jewish financiers who had left him in the lurch, as Lumpen (scoundrels). Thus, there was no love in the Montagu family for Zionism and Sir Edwin’s interest in Judaism as a religion was also quite limited. He had married a young gentile woman who had to convert to Judaism in order that the family fortune could be retained by Sir Edwin, but it was merely a matter of expediency or “label” as they put it. The overriding consideration for Sir Edwin was his political ambition and his standing in the government. In addition, he was obviously worried how he could represent the crown in India if his first loyalty were to be perceived as owed to Zion rather than the King.
     Well, it wasn’t quite a return to the proverbial square one for Zionism but a definite setback. Eventually a compromise was arrived at and I present it here in full as it was published on November 2, 1917, because only the first part tends to be commonly quoted:
 
His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
 
     Instead of the second comma, Zionists saw a period, ignored the rest and built on that. In addition, some Zionists have never fully accepted the difference between the first draft that said “Palestine should be reconstituted” as opposed to the final version “the establishment of a national home in [emphasis added] Palestine.” The latter, which is the only official British declaration, left the size and nature of the “national home” completely open. The organization which calls itself FLAME (Facts and Logic about the Middle East) regularly publishes oped pages in various journals and magazines wrote recently “Palestine was established as a national home for the Jewish people,” and chided the British for having subsequently separated Transjordan which was regarded by FLAME as a breach of promise. This is an example of how the American public is being misled (Human Events November 3, 2000)....
 
 
 
 

CHAPTER 4

Globalism

     Globalism is the new panacea which is supposed to set everything right in this world. It is, however, nothing else than the task Güdemann and others have outlined for Jews more than one hundred years ago. The key word from the previous chapter which presented his views, is “völkerverschmelzend.” What does this term mean? Translated verbally, it is an amalgamation of all nations and ethnic groups into one undifferentiated mass. I believe that Güdemann’s choice of words came from the German Schmelztiegel (melting pot), which is the way America was described in the nineteenth century. That this melting pot is currently in danger of splitting along racial and ethnic lines might be taken as a warning for social planners who envision a U.S.E. – a “United States of Earth.”
     To live in an integrated world which knows no nations and no borders is an age-old dream of some Jews. The reason for the dream is the belief that, under these circumstances, persecutions would cease and everybody would, in the words of the fairy tales, “live happily forever after.” But let us examine this notion rather than accept it uncritically. Dreams are never realized the way the dreamer imagines them once daylight breaks, and some dreams have a tendency to turn into nightmares. A reality check is, therefore, in order. This is no idle exercise because the dream is actually vigorously pursued today by Jews as well as Gentiles in political and economic circles.
     What is the real purpose of globalism, when stripped of all the humanitarian phraseology? To put it bluntly – globalism is pursued in order to make more money! Let us not delude ourselves. The name of the one god under which this world is to be united is “Mammon!” There is no doubt that some countries, especially in Africa, are in urgent need of improvement. The question is how this is to be achieved. The efforts to loan vast sums of money, which can never be repaid, have been demonstrably futile. Money cannot solve all problems. Unless this simple lesson sinks in, global planning can only produce more problems than it solves. Until the standard of living can be raised in the poorest countries through efforts of their own, and until they cease and desist from their tribal wars, paternalistic largesse from abroad will be both squandered and resented. Imagine for a moment what would happen if by the stroke of a pen all borders across the world were to be opened and all national jurisdictions abolished. A Völkerwanderung of unimaginable proportions would result, bringing chaos to the Western World. Even if, through the miracles of technology, all countries were to be equally wealthy, national pride in one’s spiritual heritage would still have to be contended with. Are people really going to give up voluntarily their most cherished ancestral beliefs? Surely not. Will the supergovernment then force them to do so? Yes, in all probability....

     The demise of the nation state was not merely the idea of a Swiss industrialist [Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum] but was shared by the Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, Strobe Talbott. He has been quoted as saying “Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.” As has been mentioned earlier, a world without borders has been the messianic dream of a segment of the Jewish people ever since emancipation two hundred years ago. It now seems to be in grasp. But let us not forget for a moment that even super-governments are run by people! How are they going to be selected? What is going to be their core belief system? How are they going to exercise their vast power? Somebody will be in control of this super-government.
     Let us assume for a moment that the people in charge will not be Jews. What happens then? Will the Jewish people at large be better off under those circumstances because there is indeed only one world, and there is no longer any place of refuge when laws are promulgated that threaten their faith? Is it not much better that some nation states continue to exist where, as has been shown in the recent past, if something happens in one country, there is refuge – if not for all, then at least for some – in another place in the world? Furthermore the wished for globalism, or Vöelkerverchmelzung, to use Rabbi Güdemann’s term, would inevitably have to lead to assimilation in one common religion, even if it is atheism, and that is precisely what the Maccabees had fought their wars against. These are the points people who push for globalism should debate courageously.
     In addition, there is another group of Jews who have different aspirations. The Israelis want to retain, develop, and defend their nation state very badly. They are very much against immigration of anyone who is not Jewish, and they don’t want Arabs, who were displaced from their domiciles during the war in 1948, to return. Yet, when Austrians want to retain the ethnic structure of their country they are accused of Xenophobia and anti-Semitism!
     Is it likely that the Knesset in Jerusalem, which fights so hard for territory conquered in the 1967 war, will relinquish its sovereign powers over Israel to a world made up of non-Jews? Will the Knesset be willing to be educated by Mr. Schwab and his fellow think-tank members in a new set of Ten Commandments and abide by it? Will the Muslim and the Hindu people, let alone China, Russia as well as all the other countries of the world, listen to Mr. Schwab’s exhortations? Since this is obviously not going to work, what is the stick with which the non-compliants will be punished? Economic boycotts and/or bombs? Truly, for God’s sake, let us sit back and think this through before rushing ahead into a catastrophe. People are not pawns on a chess board. They love their respective countries and will rebel when they feel their vital interests are threatened. If they are punished, like Austrians have been, they will grit their teeth, dig in their heels, and make do with less, or resort to force of arms. Good will, upon which any cooperative enterprise depends, can surely not be achieved in this manner.
     A great deal is at stake again today. Most of all, it is a battle for individual liberty against an all powerful bureaucracy, which can strip away our rights one by one, and a left-wing press which distorts the views of its opponents. The assumption is that the state or a combination of states have to think for us and exercise judgment because the individual nations or citizens cannot be trusted. This is precisely what Nazism and Communism was all about. Yet, to ignore the peacefully expressed wishes of the people has always led to revolution or worse. One can only hope, and fervently wish, that the politicians responsible for our future will reconsider their actions and start reading factual information rather than being guided in their outlook exclusively by what the media report or “opinion polls” dictate. In this connection the words ascribed to Churchill are important to remember: “There is no public opinion, there is only published opinion.”
     Those of our politicians who react to public opinion and the “media pundits” who produce it, ought to read Hayek’s Road To Serfdom. Although written in 1944 towards the end of World War II, he has accurately predicted that globalization, even on a regional basis, is bound to lead to significant problems:

 
Those who at least partly realize these dangers [resulting from a planned economy] draw the conclusion that economic planning must be done ‘internationally,’ i.e. by some supernational authority…. The problems raised by a conscious direction of economic affairs on a national scale inevitably assume even greater dimensions when the same is attempted internationally. The conflict between planning and freedom cannot but become more serious as the similarity of standards and values among those submitted to a unitary plan diminishes…. Who imagines that there exist any common ideals of distributive justice such as will make the Norwegian fisherman consent to forego the prospect of economic improvement in order to help his Portuguese fellow, or the Dutch worker to pay more for his bicycle to help the Coventry mechanic, or the French peasant to pay more taxes to assist the industrialization of Italy?…

To imagine that the economic life of a vast area comprising many different people can be directed or planned by democratic procedure betrays a complete lack of awareness of the problems such planning would raise. Planning on an international scale, cannot be anything but a naked rule of force, an imposition by a small group on all the rest of that standard and employment which the planners think suitable for the rest.

 
     In 1944 this was prophecy but based on a genuine understanding of human nature. Individual freedom to develop one’s talents to maximal extent, on the one hand, and planning the direction a given society should take, on the other, are incompatible! Hayek’s book should be a “must read” for our politicians and public opinion makers.
 
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.