Academics are a dime a dozen, and some are rightfully termed (by this blogger) “wacademics”. Not unlike every discipline, some stand head and shoulders above the rest, thereby, establishing themselves as experts among said scholars.
Many of the readership are duly aware of the deep respect shown towards Professor Paul Eidelberg. Few measure up, aside from Dr. Martin Sherman and Professor Louis Rene Beres.
Specifically, Professor Eidleberg understands how to integrate dry scholarship with realities on the ground. Moreover, he is capable of interfacing other disciplines – history, religion and even literature – into conceptual critical thinking. Multidisciplinary approaches to problem solving, applying them to (seemingly) intractable world problems, is his signature. A feat of magic….evidenced through the depth and breath of his broad based scholarship.
Previously, the readership gleaned his incisive acumen through several commentaries. Most significantly, his groundbreaking policy paper, Islam & Blood, is a MUST read – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/13/islam-blood-a-groundbreaking-policy-paper-contained-herein-the-world-stands-on-a-precipice-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-109/.
In a similar vein, the following are two requisite readings:
‘Needed: A Voice of America and a Video Counterpart’
Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President ‘The Israel-America Renaissance Institute’ Jerusalem & Philadelphia – http://www.i-ari.org/
“Can it be that Islam is in its death throes? This can make Islam more dangerous than ever.
Nevertheless, if America relegates Obama to the political wilderness, the U.S. should go on the ideological offensive against Islam as it did when it inaugurated the Voice of America (VOA) and beamed its radio programs into Russia and the communist-dominated states of Eastern Europe.
The mere fact that Muslims are trying to stifle all criticism of Islam is indicative of a religion whose leaders are losing, if they haven’t already lost, solid confidence in the veracity of this bellicose ideology and of its hold over the Muslim masses.
A new and confident American leadership should not be deceived or deterred by Islam’s reputed monotheism, which in truth is a political ideology that uses monotheism as a veneer to win recruits to the anything but rational and humane tenets of the Quran. (The cunning leaders of Rome also used the gods to extend their power over ignorant masses. The Roman Empire was a theopolitical tyranny. It eventually succumbed to a new theology, Christianity, which destroyed the Roman polytheism.)
The lesson is clear. With the ascendancy of Internet, the United States should broadcast, on land and on sea, a Voice of America and its video counterpart to the Islamic world. The “Voice and Video of America” should expose the backwardness and cruelties conspicuous throughout the Islamic world.
It should contrast the respectful treatment of women in the Judeo-Christian world with the inhumane treatment of women in the Islamic world. The “Voice and Video of America” should point out that the despotic character of every Islamic state violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It should emphasize the fact that Islamic discrimination and hostility toward non-Muslims is a form of racism no less evil than the racism practiced by South Africa against Blacks. Islamic racism should render Islamic states liable to expulsion from the United Nations—the fate of South Africa. It’s important to bear in mind that Islam’s effort to stifle freedom speech is motivated not by offended religious sensibilities so much as by fear—a fear that criticism of Islam will undermine the power structure of Islamic states. Freedom of speech via worldwide criticism of Islam will be more effective in the long run than economic sanctions and military action.
(1) Our most powerful weapon is the Truth, which means Islam must be exposed as a world-historical and murderous fraud. Truth is what Muslim leaders fear most, which is why they want to stifle freedom of speech. All the more reason to go all out and bury them in freedom of speech, by exposing the savagery which the great fourteenth-century Ibn Khaldun attributed to Arab-Islamic culture, a savagery we ourselves so clearly witnessed since 9/11.
(2) However, if such exposure does not cause Islam to implode before Iran has nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, then the mortal enemy of Judeo-Christian civilization must be eviscerated. We must stop indulging in words and design a war-strategy designed to disarm Islam—and not only in the physical sense of the term. We are embroiled in a total
war, the only candid meaning of what polite gentlemen like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington called a “clash of civilizations.”
More from the master….as he dissects Mitt from Obama….a twofer –
On Being “Balanced”
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
“As a patriotic American who has studied and written extensively on America’s brilliant Founding Fathers, it was not the least bit difficult for me to cast my presidential ballot for Governor.
Not that I deem Romney a great statesman, but how could I possibly vote for a fool—and a not very American fool— like Barack Obama? Indeed, it’s difficult for me to accept without criticism how the media can be “balanced” in its coverage of Romney and a schlemiel like Obama.
Admittedly, Romney is a far throw from a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln. But how can you be “balanced” vis-à-vis the two men now vying to become President of the United States of America? Obama, with or without his teleprompter, strikes me as an “affirmative action” president. How else could he have been admitted to Harvard and the University of Chicago? Unless their admission standards have fallen precipitously, his entry into these universities had nothing to do with his intellectual qualifications.
No less disturbing is his pejorative statements about America. Obama seems to be animated by a leveling hatred of meritocracy—the meritocracy Albert Einstein attributed to America when he arrived in New York back in 1920.
Yes, as recent quantitative studies indicate, America’s Founding Fathers were far more influenced by the Biblical ideas and moral values that adorned the curriculum of eighteenth-century Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and what was later called Princeton, than by the secular ideas of Enlightenment manifested in the writings of Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu.
Indeed, Harvard and Yale, influenced by the Puritans and Calvinism, abhorred the materialism and skepticism of the Enlightenment, as may be seen in the writings of James Wilson, perhaps the most learned and, next to Madison, the most significant architect of the America Constitution.
Thanks to the countervailing influence of the Bible vis-à-vis British and European philosophers, and bearing in mind the extraordinary influence of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton’s on the first eight years of the new American government, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that these founders conceived of the American democracy as a democratic aristocracy.
But let’s talk about being “balanced.” How are you going to be balanced between the “good” and the “bad,” between the “competent” and the “incompetent”? How are you going to be balanced between a politician like Romney who loves and admires “America” as opposed to a politician like Obama who disparages America’s foundational documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
By his own mindless boast of being a “cosmopolitan,” Obama is a “man without a country.” He has rightly been called America’s first multicultural president, a person steeped in moral relativism. How nicely “balanced” are his moral and cultural values!
Well, it’s not difficult for a man without a country to be a multicultural moral relativist, especially today when so many college or university professors luxuriate as multicultural moral relativists, sheltered academics who like to appear intellectually superior to the unwashed multitude. Intellectual conceit and moral obscurantism are the staples of academia in post-modern America. This is why Obama is a favorite among half-educated journalists who would give equal time to Socrates and a Sophist.
This is being “balanced” or “even-handed”—as are so many diplomats dealing with the conflict between the Jews of Israel and the Muslims of the Palestinian Authority. Did I say “even-handed”? Can you be even-handed between good and evil without undermining morality, hence the good?
Alas, this is a subject that diminishes the distance between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, because all attempts to dissolve the conflict between the Jews of Israel and their “Palestinian” enemies has dignified the latter and dishonored the former. Excuse me for my lack of “balance.”
Of course, there are occasions when balance can be a virtue. But Washington chose Revolution to “balance,” and Lincoln preferred Civil War to “balance.” In politics you often find schlemiels across the political spectrum. But today we need a Washington or a Lincoln, not a schlemiel like Obama; and for any journalist to be so “balanced” as to obscure Obama’s mental inferiority is tantamount to being a propagandist. But isn’t this a sad reflection on what has become of American democracy, in contrast to what I said above regarding the vision of America’s Founding Fathers?”
The above is a “renaissance man’s” approach to a life and death struggle – a “clash of civilizations”.
We need to honestly assess : is there a statesman capable of meeting the above challenges and prescriptive changes? If so, will he lead the charge; grab the mantle; save freedom and liberty; and encourage others to jump on board?
Western civilization is reaching critical mass…hanging in the balance.