Understanding What Divides Us and Why

 

A recent national poll of just under seven million respondents showed that 35% of Americans identify as Conservatives. 25% as Liberals while a whopping 45%  said they were Moderates. It appears that Americans, as a whole, don't like what either of the two corporate owned parties are peddling. 

Of course, no doubt, that almost every elected politician in Washington who sees this poll would automatically claim to be a "moderate" if that meant hanging on to their office. They change positions faster than a chameleon walking on plaid!

RepresentUs, a nonpartisan advocacy group, published an interesting survey which showed how Americans ranked themselves based on their political views. According to the survey, there are nine distinct groups. 10% are flag and faith conservatives (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc). 7% are dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. 11% are populist right wingers (Tea Party, etc). 12% lean conservative. 15% are "stressed sideliners" or nonpartisans. 10% lean liberal. 16% are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. 13% are Establishment Liberals. Finally, 6% are extreme or "progressive" Left Wing (Antifa, etc).

So, you can see that even by this breakdown, 37% are moderates (and, although the survey didn't indicate, likely Independent since Independents tend to lean conservative on some issues and liberal on others). Meanwhile, 35% are Left Wing while 28% are Right Wing.

I guess it's not surprising that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be moderate. Moderates, and their willingness to see both sides of an issue is what has historically moved this nation forward.  We've never really been a nation of extremism until relatively recently. Then again, both parties, in their collective race to the bottom, have virtually purged their membership of moderates.

The only time you see either party come anywhere near the middle is during the general election, and that's just to appeal to the "Great Middle" and get their vote. After which, both sides gravitate back to the outer edges of reality and to the extremists on either side.  So, who is the "middle" anyway?

Traditionally, the middle was what governed this nation. In recent history it's been individuals like Truman, Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and John Kennedy.  Today, it's the Independents, the largest voting bloc in country. As of the end of October 2021, Independents made up 44% of registered voters while Republicans and Democrats were basically tied at 26% each according to a Gallup poll.

I think Independents see both parties for what they are---two flea infested wings of the same old corporate vulture. That's why they've jettisoned their malignant dogmas. While each party likes to finger point at the other, both are responsible for the shape America is in, including the corruption, cronyism, and increasingly extremist behavior. Both sides have sold out the Republic and transformed us into a neo-fascist Corporatocracy.  They have created a surveillance state which is one crisis away from becoming a police state.

 Corporate lobbyists are responsible for writing the overwhelming majority of legislation, and then shepherding it through the various Byzantine maze of committees and subcommittees, greasing palms and adding self serving amendments along the way. They fund campaigns, party coffers, and line the pockets of those willing to go along with the status quo. They control our foreign and domestic policies just as they control the media and use it as their propaganda arm. We can't keep going on like this.

They create and exploit divisions among the citizenry. The more we're divided, the easier we are to control and manipulate while they pull the puppet strings. And all that "infighting" you see on television? That's one corporate interest group competing with another. Anything positive we get out of it, the crumbs, is purely happenstance.  Of course, they put on a show when election times rolls around to make it look like they're doing something and it's "the other guy's fault", but that's all it really is, a show.

Given what both parties have done to us and our country, is it any wonder that the overall Congressional approval rate, as of the end of October, was just 21%? In practically every other country, politicians would be packing their bags and heading for the nearest airport out with that kind of approval rating.

The good news I suppose is that the rating is up from 18% a few weeks earlier. Nevertheless, Congress has been maintaining pathetically low levels for decades. But, in their defense, while we've been giving them low approval ratings, they've been giving us low performance ratings in return!

According to the same poll, the approval rating for Democrats was just 33%, but don't gloat Republicans. Yours was just 5%. As for "Sleepy Joe" Biden, his approval rating tanked to 38%.  His Vice President, Kamala Harris, didn't do much better. Her approval rating was 27.8%. As an aside, 44% of Independents disapprove of Biden's job.

 Also, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was 38%, though 72% of Democrats like her while McConnell's approval rating was just 30% of which 62% of Republicans like the job he's doing.  It's worth noting that while the majority of America's support the infrastructure bill (61%) before Biden, only a quarter of them think it will benefit them in any meaningful way.

All this makes me wonder why we've allowed it to continue. You know, despite these embarrassing approval ratings, we still elect well over 90% of them! Even the old Soviet Politburo didn't have that rate of reelection! It seems to me that the ones we should be upset the most with isn't Congress or whoever is the president. It's us for continuing to reelect this den of thieves.

Did you know that, according to another RepresentUs survey, that despite their lackluster approval ratings, 45 member of Congress still violated the Stock Act of 2021, including Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Rand Paul, Representative Dan Crenshaw, and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? The act was to prevent insider trading by members of the House and Senate.

 By the way, you should remember Debbie. She was fired in 2016 for helping Hillary to rig the Democrat Primary against Senator Bernie Sanders. But no worries. She was hired the next day to work directly on Hillary's failed presidential campaign, and how she's in Congress. Amazing how they land on their feet isn't it?

Here's a little factoid for you to consider. For the 535 members of Congress, there are 11,524 lobbyists representing corporations and none that represent average Americans. Of that 11,524 lobbyists, Big Pharma has approximately 1,350 of them (roughly 3 per Congressman), and they're not bashful about spending money. This year alone they've spent $263 million on Congress.

While 83% of Americans favor federally negotiated drug prices, Big Pharma doesn't. Since 2003, it has spent over $3.8 billion dollars to make sure it doesn't happen, and you know how many bills have been passed to regulate drug prices? Zero. Nada. Goose egg. But then again, as I've said, it's the lobbyists who write the bills, so what do you expect?

Here's another factoid for you. Consider it a bonus. Of all the industrialized nations in the world, we have the highest incarceration rate of any of them. As of 2019, there was 2.1 million people behind bars. That's more than China, Russia, Cuba, India, Mexico, Rwanda, or any of the Muslim nations like Iran, Turkistan, or Pakistan.

If states were ranked as countries, 25 states have a higher percentage of prisoners that the first country on the list, which so happens to be the U.S.. The state with the higher incarceration percentage is Louisiana, followed by Mississippi and Oklahoma. Kentucky is seventh. We have to go another ten more states before we get to the next country, El Salvador!  Why is this? Why should one of the "freest" nations on earth have the highest incarceration rate on the planet? 

For the fifth straight year, the United States has been ranked as "flawed democracy", which is just one step above a failed democracy. We are currently ranked 25th in the world of freest countries, and we've continued to drop regardless of who is president or which corporate party has the majority in Congress.

By all other measures, such as quality of life, longevity, happiness, healthcare, education, and so on, we're consistently ranked, at best, toward the bottom of the top tier or in the second tier. Surely we can't keep going on like this.

It reminds me of the Ancient Roman Republic which, despite having the most powerful military in the world, was rapidly decay internally due to corruption, a powerful political and economic oligarchy, invading tribes, a deteriorating infrastructure, as well as economic instability, rising taxes and public debt (it also sounds a lot like Weimar Germany in the 1920's, just prior to the rise of the Nazis).

Something tells me that living under a new Caesar or Fuehrer won't be a lot of fun, especially given the level of technology, hereto unseen in history of Mankind, and the fact that we're already a surveillance state in place; just one crisis (real or manufactured) away from a police state.  All you need to do is look around...or down at your Smartphone or up at your computer screen.

Let's not forget, they already have a propaganda wing in the form of the media, which has been actively attempting to control, divide, and manipulate us for decades now. It will take tremendous personal fortitude to see through the manufactured BS; more than it did in Fascist Spain, Argentina, Germany, Italy, or Soviet era Russia, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, or modern China and North Korea.

Americans, though, are a unique breed. Most of us are not just the descendants of immigrants. We're mostly the descendents of misfits who simply didn't fit in with the established status quo. We wanted to do better. We wanted to believe what we wanted. We wanted our own land or our own business. We wanted to say and read and think what we wanted. We wanted to exist with as little government interference as possible (today that would include corporate interference too).

Even those who came here against their will, having been kidnapped or captured and sold by their own people are a helluva lot better off than the best of those they left behind. America is still the first choice for those seeking a better life (though it's not exactly as billed). The main problem is that they don't want to do it legally or they think they're entitled to an automatic pass for some reason. So claim that "no one is illegal", which is true, but their actions may be. That's why we have laws. 

Nevertheless, there's still much we can do to reclaim our country and restore the Republic. As I've often pointed out in my articles, we can still reverse our decline into some sort of modern servitude to the Corporate state which will affect all of us regardless of political registration, ideology, gender or orientation, religion (or lack thereof), where we live or went to school, or the color of our skin.

Those are manufactured divisions anyway whose sole purpose is to keep us fighting each other while the ruling Oligarchy grows like a cancer and becomes stronger while the media continues to tell us what to think, who to hate, or who to blame for whatever make believe slight they conjure up.

The truth is that we alone are responsible for what to think or believe. We alone are responsible for our decisions, good or bad. We control the means to achieve our success. There's no one to blame but us for our failures without need of their readymade excuses and scapegoats. We have the right to live where we want (assuming we can afford it) no matter what we look like, believe, or love.

At the same time, we have the right as human beings to associate with whomever we want without fear of some artificial construct (aka "political correctness"). That goes for what we say, read, or watch too. We owe no one an apology or "reparations" for the past anymore than we can guarantee the future. We only have the here and now to determine our actions.  

We owe no dogma our loyalty. Dogmas, political or otherwise, only create barriers and differences. The only loyalty we owe is to Truth, Honesty, and to ourselves. As the great Hebrew sage, Hillel, once famously said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor", to which I would add my own quote "what divides us makes society and ourselves vulnerable and weak  while what unites us makes us stronger as a society and as individuals".  Perhaps we're finally waking up to what's hateful to ourselves and others.

 

Congress Approval Lowest in 2021 as Democrats Turn Negative

Gloomy landscape for Democrats in midterms as Biden's approval rating drops to 38% in USAToday/Suffolk poll

U.S. Congressional Leaders Unpopular on the Balance

 

Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism: The (Current) Ogre of The Right

As of this writing, Bernie Sanders is the current leader among the contenders for the Democratic Party's nominee for President and the one to face President Donald Trump in the fall. The last time Sanders ran for president, back in 2016, he was literally cheated out the opportunity to become his party's nominee by the "Queen-in-waiting", Hillary Clinton, along with a little help from her friends like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the (then) head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Of course, Wasserman was later forced to resign as a result of helping to rig the nomination process against Sanders. Sanders was also denied a role in putting together the party's agenda for the upcoming election. Such was the deep seated fear of the Establishment Democrats of Sanders.

Now, with no Hillary Clinton to contend with, Bernie Sanders appears to be on a roll. So much so that the Establishment Right is already rolling out their "Oh God, he's a Pinko Commie Bastard" message. The truth of the matter is this. Bernie calls himself a "socialist democrat" and he's making all the usual promises designed to get attention and, hopefully, votes; especially from those who are sick and tired of being sick and tired of politics as usual.

The Right is doing its best to equate Bernie with every bogeyman imaginable. They are claiming that he's a full blown a rat-bastard Communist and neo-Stalinist. They've even tried to link his claim of democratic socialism with Fascism and Nazis (which actually fall on the far Right of the political spectrum, not the Left), but let's not confuse facts with some good old fashion mudslinging! Besides, this is politics. What does "Truth" have to do with it anyway? Some have even had the audacity to compare Bernie Sanders with that other lowdown Commie, President Franklin D Roosevelt (gasp!).

Yes, it's often alleged by the Right that President Franklin D Roosevelt was a closet Commie bastards too. Well, he was certainly called a "traitor to his class" by all well heeled society folks of the time, especially those on Wall Street. After all, he was tied to the Great Depression thanks to the actions (or inactions) of his predecessors, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. It's true that he took steps to make Wall Street and the banks more accountable not just to the government, but to the public.

It's also true that he helped implement some dastardly "socialist" government programs like Social Security, funded pensions, enacted child labor laws, legalized unionization, backed the 40 hour work week, established wage hour laws and supported health benefits programs, unemployment insurance, and safe working conditions. He also created "make work" programs (the so-called "Alphabet Agencies" to employ many of the vast unemployed men and women. Oh the humanity of it all! Did this man not have a conscience? He was indeed a traitor to his class.

It's said that FDR was nearly as bad as his cousin (who was called a "mad man"), President Theodore Roosevelt, who broke up the monopolies of the Robber Barons (Antitrust Policy), his conservation efforts, and the Meat Inspection Act along with the Food and Drug Act of 1906; both of which sought to make clean up those industries so that people would get a healthy and consistent product. By today's standards, ole "Teddy" as he was called would also be called a RINO.

But much has changed since then. For example, we had numerous programs aimed at improving life for ordinary Americans. Many were called "socialist" at the time too but we wouldn't dream being without them. I'm talking about Truman's Fair Deal of 1949 which included the Housing Act which rid communities of slums and implemented urban renewal. He expanded Social Security. He desegregated the military (yes, that was actually called "socialist" in 1949). Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1960 while Kennedy expanded it in 1962.

President Johnson declared war on poverty, which included work-study programs for students, expanded healthcare and education programs such as Headstart into areas hit the hardest by poverty (particularly in the Appalachian regions of Kentucky and West Virginia). There was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, in part, barred discrimination against in employment, sales, and housing. In 1964, Medicare and Medicaid were created. The Water Quality Act was passed in 1965.

Nixon backed the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 to create safety standards and ban products deemed unsafe for consumer use, and the list goes on. The point is that each of these programs were, in their day, each called "socialism" by the opposition, but can you imagine being without any of them--no unemployment, no Social Security; no laws protecting you from overtime abuse or your paycheck; living with unsafe working conditions, or legalized discrimination?

Yeah, there have been oversteps; programs which didn't work or work as originally intended such as Welfare which has devolved into a virtual "career" choice for some, or federal overreach into public schools (another notion which was considered "socialist" when first introduced), and especially forced busing which denied choice. More recently there have been attempts to limit gun and ammo sales or curtail free speech. None of these does society much good.

As for Bernie Sanders, he is a Democrat no matter what he calls himself. He must still operate within the confines of the rules established by his party. Secondly, the Democrats and Republican establishment work in unison to control the political process in this country. There are things they will and will not allow to happen. In turn, the two party duopoly and their politicians are controlled by a ruling Oligarchy of very wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals. They establish the political tone and direction in this country by controlling Washington's overall political agenda.

The Oligarchy is not in any shape form or fashion socialist or tolerant of socialism. They will not allow themselves to ever be dictated to by the government. Never. At present they exist in a partnership with government which is financially beneficial to each. They, through their hired guns---the lobbyists---help write legislation and then lobby (bribe) to ensure its passage. The bickering is mainly over whose agenda makes it through and who gets the largest share of crumbs (aka "pork"). Financially they underwrite the politicians and their campaigns. They control 90+% of the media and, therefore, control the message.

Politically speaking, most are pretty conservative fiscally, preferring a hands off approach from government with as little regulation as possible, while their opinions on social issues vary. Anyone elected to office must comply with the demands of the Oligarchy and, in turn, the very powerful party bosses, who act as gatekeepers, and committee chairmen and women. That includes Sanders should he get elected president. Any attempt to buck the Status Quo will be shut down.

If someone gets too far out of hand, the Establishment will force them back in line. That can be anything from denying you a seat on a particular committee or no "crumbs" to take home to the voters to destroying your political career or character assassination to working against you in your reelection (yes, a party will turn on their own if they buck the system too much). In a few cases, they've been known to take more serious steps to eliminate a problem.

Who is backing Sanders? He can't get elected on the dimes and dollars ordinary voters give. The Status Quo has been it virtually impossible for the average person to run for office and get elected. So, obviously Sanders has to have some big money behind him. Well, in his 2016 race his biggest financial supporters were the University of California, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Amazon, Kaiser Permanente (a healthcare consortium), National Nurses United, Boeing, Intel, AT&T, as well as political action groups and wealthy members representing the Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs, U.S. Dept of Defense, and federal government employees.

However, his biggest financial donor was a company I had never heard of. It's named Alphabet, Inc. It turns out that Alphabet, Inc is a conglomerate of multinational corporations which comprise businesses like Google, a semi-secret R&D company named X Development, another R&D company which focuses on genetics and disease named Calico, Nest which markets smart home products, Makani Technologies which manufactures wind turbines, a private equity company, CapitalG, which concentrates on investing on emerging growth technology businesses. Not exactly what I'd expect to find donating in large dollar amounts to a "democratic socialist".

As expected, there were also a host of Left leaning organizations such as MoveOn and ad hoc groups like Progressive Voters of America. This go around, it looks like his big donors are the same groups as above in addition to UPS, Walmart, City University of New York, Starbucks, and Target. He's also getting money from the American Postal Workers Union, the Communication Workers of America, the National Education Association, Unite Here, Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Operating Engineers Union.

Again, not what I would expect for someone whose political campaign is based on doing away with free enterprise or government takeover of all existing businesses including Wall Street. I should also point out that several of these groups are covering their bases by donating to multiple candidates, but it appears that at this point anyway Bernie is getting the majority of their money.

Speaking of which, Wall Street Democrats and other Establishment Democrats loath Sanders. Not that they actually expect he'd be able to pull off some sort of socialist coup once elected, but that he might be able to at least implement some form of restrictions on capital or push through some type of new social program. The big dollar Democratic candidate is multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg (because being a billionaire creates such a close connect with the working class I suppose). He's followed by another multibillionaire, Tom Steyer, then come Bernie, who is a mere millionaire.

Next is Joe Biden with a net worth of around nine million dollars. Rounding out the top five is Pete Buttigieg. It's worth noting that Buttigieg is not a millionaire, but he's not exactly poor either. He's basically upper middle class with a net worth of approximately $100,000. He earns just over $112,000 as mayor of South Bend Indiana. His husband, a middle school teacher, earns $152,000.

So, there you have it. Bernie, the millionaire. Hardly the stereotype of a democratic socialist, and making promises he knows damn well he can't deliver on. Meanwhile front groups on the Right are on the verge of a hysterical meltdown as they try to whip conservatives into thinking that Sanders represents Stalin incarnate (the likely goal is to help get a Establishment Democrat win the nomination). They've even gone as far as to claim that Sanders and his ilk equate to Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and that all of them are offshoots of Marxism!

Yeah, I'm perfectly aware of just how absurd that sounds, but then again, thanks to our "dumbed down" education system there are a lot of people who don't know history and will be believe just about anything. Want to know more? Check out my links below. As regular readers of A/O know, I always include source links with my articles.



Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2016

Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2020

The Money: Who's Winning---and losing---the great 2020 money chase

What is Pete Buttigieg's Net Worth?

In God We Trust? Well, Maybe: The Trend of Religion in America

Pick up any piece of American currency and you will find the words "In God We Trust" somewhere on it (it first appeared on coins starting in 1864). We sing patriotic songs like "God Bless America" and say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" , added by President Eisenhower in 1954 to set us apart from the "godless" Communists at the urging of a wide range of groups like the Knights of Columbus and various veteran organizations As an aside, it was also President Eisenhower who signed the bill approving the use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on all US currency in 1956. Even when you take an oath in a court of law, you're asked to tell the trust "so help you God" with your hand on a bible no less and the Ten Commandments appear in every courtroom.

Of course, there are those who claim that America was founded to be a "Christian" nation, though in truth it was founded to be a religious neutral nation; that is, a nation where all religions were welcome and where there would be no official state religion, unlike Europe where government's tended to have a state approved religion and all others had to obtain both permission to practice and to pay a special tax in addition to the state "pew" tax. Nevertheless, America was a nation which took great pride in its religious tolerance and in its devotion; adopting Judeo-Christian ethics into its laws. And so we remained since our founding as nation, that is, until recently.

Back when President Eisenhower signed those two bills into existence, approximately 70% of households attended some sort of religious services on a regular basis. 97% of Americans identified as "Christian", be it Protestant (70%), Catholic (24%), or Mormon (3%). Those numbers remained pretty much consistent through 1979 when there was a slight, but noticeable drop. In that year, those who identified as "Christian" dipped to 88%. While still a significant majority, it marked the first time the percentage dipped under 90%.

Since then, despite fluctuations, the overall trend has been generally downward. Today that number in barely 48%. Those who answered in the affirmative when asked if they were a "born again" or Evangelical Christian was just 36%. In 2018, 68% of those who identified as belonging to an organized religion said they hadn't attended a religious service within the last seven days. While 72% said that religion was generally important, only 33% admitted to having attended a religious service within the last month. When asked if they thought religion (regardless of their denomination) could help provide a solution to today's problems, only 46% said yes. 46% also said that organized religion had "to much" influence, however, 54% thought that organized religion should have more influence.

When it came to confidence in organized religion, 38% said they did while 33% said they had only a "some" confidence in organized religion and 29% had little or no confidence. Another interesting response was on the bible itself. When asked if they thought the bible was literal word of God, just 24% agreed while 47% said it was just the "inspired" word of God. The balance either thought it was myths, fables, or legends. As an aside, 87% said they believed in a god or higher power.

For those who identified as belonging to an organized faith, but didn't attend services on a regular basis, 44% said they preferred to worship on their own (and additional 21% said that was a contributing factor). 61% said they were turned off by organized religion, while 65% said they weren't quite as religious as they once were. The least most cited reason for not attending was not feeling welcome. 65% said that wasn't a factor and 55% said being asked for money wasn't a big deal either.

In terms of religion by region, the Midwest is 73% Christian (the majority is Evangelical Protestant at 26% followed closely by Catholic with 21%. Mainline Protestant was 19%). However, 22% identify as "none". Out West, 64% identified as Christian (Catholic was the slight majority with 23% while Evangelical Protestant was 22% while Mainline Protestants was only 11%). Nevertheless, 28% opted for "none". In the Northeast, 65% said they were Christian (Catholics were a clear majority with 30%. Mainline Protestants were 15% while Evangelicals were 13%). Interestingly, the "none" were 25%. . Nationally, other religions, such as Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, or Muslim all tended to 4% or under. In most cases, they were around 1%.

Lastly, the South, which has traditionally been seen as highly religious and conservative; home of the "Bible belt". Here, 76% identified as Christian (34% as Evangelical Protestants, 15% Catholic, and 14% Mainline Protestant), and yet the "none" still polled 19%. The "belt buckle" of the Bible belt, Kentucky, showed 76% Christian. 49% were Evangelical with 11% Mainline Protestant, and 10% Catholic. Non-Christian religions totaled just 2% in the Bluegrass State. However, the "none" had a remarkable 22% showing. So, what's happening?

From practically its beginning, Christianity has been essentially a European religion despite having partial roots in the Middle East. However, that appears to be changing, and rapidly. Starting from about 1991 to 2014, white Protestants, which has made up the majority of Christians in America since its founding, have been on a steep decline. During the period mention, white Protestant churches have declined by one third, and will continue to accelerate downward as white America declines in population.

As a result, studies show that most congregations now have under 100 members with hundreds of churches being either forced to merge or simply closing. The worse hit are the Mainline churches such as a Methodists, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Catholic, and Presbyterian as well as Evangelical churches such as Baptist, Pentecostal and others. However, not all churches are in decline.

Those which are actually growing are the traditional Roman Catholic and Assemblies of God to name just two. However, a few others--both Mainline and Evangelical--are showing signs of life. The growth has been coming almost exclusively from recent immigrants, especially Hispanics and from Africa. In fact, 71% of the growth in traditional Roman Catholic congregations has been from Hispanics. Further, the cultural center of Catholicism in the US is shifting from the Northwest to the South along with this change. In addition, multiracial churches, once almost unheard of, are increasingly the "new normal" across the board.

Globally, Christianity continues to be the world's largest religion. It's greatest area of growth has been primarily in Africa, followed by Asia. However, it should be pointed that studies have indicated that the Americanized version of Christianity overseas is viewed with the most suspension and has seen the least success in sustained growth. Some blame this on the so-called "Trump Effect", that is, the "America First" or "Pax Americana" resulting from Trump's alleged populist nationalism. Those denominations which promote a more "liberal" or inclusive ideology seem to be showing the most signs of growth (this includes opposition to the concept of "American Exceptionalism").

Of course, this isn't to say that the once popular ideology of Liberation Theology, an admixture of Marxism and Evangelicalism popular among the poor in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, is making a comeback, at least not yet. Thus, globally, Christianity continues to thrive, as well as domestically, though primarily among nonwhite populations as well as churches which embrace multiracial, and thus multiculturalism along with a more liberal and modern interpretation of the scriptures which can embrace different cultures and traditions different from the longstanding Western or European version of Christianity.

So what's the long term future of religion, especially Christianity? Some might cite Islam which appears to be growing on all fronts, especially in Asia and Europe. However, that notion is deceptive. In Europe Islam is on the rise to be sure. However, the explanation is actually multi fold. First, the population of native Europeans has been on steady decline since the end of World War Two. In fact, the birthrate isn't capable of even maintaining the current population; bare one child per couple.

Meanwhile, the EU's catastrophic open door immigration policy has led to a rise of immigrants, often low skilled and largely uneducated, flooding European cities. The majority of these immigrants are from Africa and the Middle East, and most are Muslim. The birth rate among these individuals is approximately five children per family; nearly doubling or tripling every few generations. At that rate, they will easily overtake the native European population within a matter of a few decades (in many communities this has already happened).

In addition, since the end of the last war, religious attendance has also been on the decline. Combine this will the rise of Muslim immigrants, and we can see Europe's pending disaster, especially if we include the refusal of the various governments to enforce existing laws, allowing the application of Sharia, and failure to protect the local population from violence, harassment, intimidation, or enforcing acceptance of "no go" zones and changing cultural and social norms. As a, interesting side note, while the Muslim population abroad increases, the birthrate among Arab populations in their home countries are on the decline.

In Asia, it's not a matter of population replacement or a decline in religious adherence. It is, however, the result of Muslim extremism and in some case (such as China), a history of general religious suppression which has been the main cause. This is especially true when other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism, have been officially prohibited. In other cases, it has been a reluctance of the various governments to respond to the increased religious and cultural violence such as in India, Nepal, or the Philippines.

Lastly, there has been a fear by more religiously tolerant Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, or Syria, to counter the violence out of fear of sparking a more direct conflict with extremist (much like trying to appease a bully). The result is that certain minorities such as the Kurds, the Yazidis, and Assyrian Christians are sacrificed and face slavery and genocide.

Finally, we need to address the "none" I mentioned earlier. The "none" are not a single monolithic group. They are, actually, individuals who do not adhere to a particular religion, aka secular. Some are agnostic while others are atheists, while others are pagan, Wiccans, Humanists, and so forth. It's interesting to note that the single largest group are, in fact, those who identify as secular. What's more is that secularism is the world's fastest growing religious demographic. Even Islam is quickly losing the war against secularism, as is Hinduism, Buddhism, and even paganism which a few years ago was seen as the fastest growing religion in the world.

In Saudi Arabia, an estimated 24% are privately non-believers. In Lebanon it's 37%. Ironically, one explanation has been a direct result of the increase in Islamic extremism. It should be pointed out that secularism too can be just as extreme and intolerant as Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, especially when it comes to forcing people, especially children, into situations where they have to accept certain lifestyles or prohibits them from their own religious or social expression (case in point, requiring children to attend LGBTQ programs or fining people for not using the "correct" pronouns). Neither form of extremism is acceptable.

So, do we still trust in God? The answer is a qualified yes. Americans are still a generally religious bunch. However, our long held notion of religion is changing. It's no longer a mono-racial institution. It is increasingly comprised of individuals who weren't born in America and whose native language isn't English. Most are Hispanic, African, or even Asian. We also have a broader diversity of religions than ever before, especially among Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims, as well as nontraditional belief systems such as paganism and Wicca. It's also increasingly more socially liberal than it once was.

In addition, Americans, as well as the world, has increasingly become secular. It's not that they reject God (or a higher power) so much as they reject organized religion with its inflexible dogma. It's also that they see both the good and bad in all religious systems, especially its intolerance of others. However, as stated earlier, it too has its extremist who attempt to push their beliefs on others including the acceptance of specific lifestyles, behaviors, and/or prohibit others from the practice of their beliefs which must be curtailed. We have to remember that in this interconnected world, that each must be accorded the right to their own religious expressions without interfering with the expression of others so called as no one is harmed in the process.




Gallup Poll: Religion


Pew Research: Religious Landscape Study



Where is Christianity headed? The View from 2019



The Rise of Humanism


The World's New Major Religion: No Religion

Merging Religion and Politics or Stop Letting Your Dogma Chase My Karma

"Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains." (Mark 13: 6-8). This passage is from the Christian New Testament. Most would consider it to be a dark and foreboding passage, while others---the "true believers"---consider it a warning with an ultimately happy ending...of sorts. It's about the so-called "End Times" which is a popular theme among the three Abrahamic religions; namely Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Groups like ISIS/ISIL/DASH, Al-Qaeda, Boku Harem, and other such terrorist organizations openly proclaim that it is their "divine mission" to provoke not just the West, but any and all nation which isn't under Sharia law in order to "hasten" the coming of the 12th Iman, which is their equivalent of the Messiah. Some even claim that that individual already exists but is waiting for the right moment to appear. This individual will be seen as the Prophet Muhammad reborn. Along with him will come Jesus, who is seen as a lesser prophet, whose job is to convert all non-believing Christians. After their successful victory, there will be a divinely inspired Caliphate to rule the world for eternity.

In Judaism, they await the coming of their two (or three) messiahs. Specifically, a return of the ancient prophet Elijah who will precede the Messiah ben Joseph, who is sometimes called Messiah ben Ephraim. This individual will be followed by the long awaited Messiah ben David. However, before any of these individuals can appear, certain conditions must first be meet. First, the Jews must return to their ancient homeland, Israel. Next, they must rebuild their ancient temple (for the third time) and reestablish the priesthood, both of which were destroyed by the Roman in 70 CE under the command of future emperor, Titus. Of course, there are numerous sub-plots which have to take place such as a great persecution of the Jews, the birth of "pure" white bull (that is, one without any physical flaws or marks) and so forth.

Ben Joseph will do battle with an evil ruler from the North named "Armilus", who is born of "a woman of marble" in Rome, will ultimately kill ben Joseph and leave his body in the streets of Jerusalem. Armilus and his minions will then descend on the nation of Israel and will be defeated by its new leader, ben David. Ben Joseph is brought back to life, along with all the "devout" Jews who've died down through the centuries, thanks to Elijah, along the world and its "true believers" will enter a new "Messianic Age", said to last 1000 years.

Christians have a different take, however. They believe that Jesus, their messiah, will return after the rise of two really nasty and evilly possessed individuals, the "Anti-Christ" and the "False Prophet" (some interpretations claim they are actually one individual). The "Anti-Christ" will come to power over a reconstituted Roman Empire with the "False Prophet" acting as his PR man. Together, they will seduce the world and force everyone to accept his personal brand or stamp---666---or the "Mark of the Beast". Those that refuse will be unable to conduit any financial transactions, buy food, etc. As an aside, the number is sometimes written as "616". Either way, it was intended to be symbolic of the then current reigning emperor, Nero Caesar.

A some point, Christians will be singled out for persecution (some Christian theologians claim this will include Jews as well). Meanwhile, things will go to "hell in a hand-basket". There will be all sorts of natural (or not-so-natural) disasters like in increase in volcanic eruptions, extreme changes in the weather and earthquakes, rampant diseases, starvation, and, as alluded to in the opening paragraph, wars and rumors of war. Eventually, Israel will be left standing alone with small pockets of Christian "true believers", and just when it looks like all is hopelessly lost, the dark and ominous clouds (these seem to be required in any apocalyptic story) will open and Jesus will coming riding down on his white horse (naturally) surrounded by an army of angels. A horrific battle in the heavens between the demon armies of Satan and Jesus and those on the ground will ensure; centering in a valley called Megiddo (hence the term Armageddon).

Ultimately, the Anti-Christ and his PR guy, the "False Prophet", are defeated, bound, and thrown into a lake (or pit) of fire for a 1000 years along with any remaining demons; his evil earthly minions follow him into the pit shortly afterwards. Meanwhile, any non-believing Jews remaining will convert on the spot, and a new divinely led or inspired era will ensue; one which includes a "New Jerusalem" and a divine kingship.

Now, I admit that I've given the abbreviated version of events. To spell out the apocalyptic visions of all three of the Abrahamic faiths in detail would take way to long: there are literally dozens of texts which deal with each religion, and hundreds of additional books examining each point, not to mention the dozens of books excluded from officially sanctioned scripture. However, I wanted to point out the difference and similarities of each of the three religions, which share a common origin, starting with their mutual founder, Abraham, who is credited with being the literal father of Judaism and Islam through Sarah and their son Issac and Hagar and Ishmael respectively.

All three believe there will be mounting violence and destruction. Some of it will be natural, while parts will be either divine retribution for straying from the "righteous path", while some demonic power reins over the balance of it in the form of wars, disease, pestilence, and their derivatives such as famine, a lack of fresh water, toxic pollution, and so forth. In the case of Islam, they believe they must act to help bring about the arrival of the 12th Iman, which includes destroying all those who are non-believers.

Judaism, on the other hand, believes it has a divine right to restore its former glory, especially the restoration of its temple complex on its original site and priesthood. The only problem, however, is that the site of the original temple is now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which were built between 692-693 by the Umayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, which was about 55 years after the capture of Jerusalem by the invading Muslim armies. As an aside, some Islamic scholars believe that al Malik purposely built the site as an alternative hajj (a mandatory religious pilgrimage) to Mecca and its "Ka'bah", considered the most sacred structure in Islam, since at the time Mecca was under the control of competing sect led by an individual named Ibn al-Zubayi.

Nevertheless, many Jewish theologians and scholars hold that the temple complex must be completed for restoration of Israel's former glory (some scholars don't believe in a literal return, but more of a "Messianic Age" or a second "golden age" for Israel. However, they also recognize that to do so meaning removing---likely by force--the existing mosque, which will be like throwing a firecracker into a hornet's nest.

Christians tied their end-of-days story closely to the Jewish tale, with an obviously emphasis on themselves as previously described. They believe pretty much everything that the Jews do, except they are the intended victims, or at least as much as the Jews are. Their biggest difference is that their messiah returns a second time, from heaven, while the Jews believe theirs will come for the first time, and will be divinely inspired, but not a god or demigod; just a purely mortal human being.

What's interesting about all three interpretations is that for each, the other one's "messiah" is their demonic bad guy. So, for the Muslims, the Jewish reborn Elijah and Messiahs ben Joseph and ben David, are the "Spawns of the Devil". Jesus is actually a Muslim and a sidekick to the 12th Iman. His role is to convert or destroy non-believing Christians. Meanwhile, the 12th Iman and his forces are the evildoers of Judaism and Christianity. Now the really scary part of all this is that each believe with absolutely certainty that they are correct; there is no debate and definitely no questioning. This means that each is on a deliberate path to mutual self-destruction in order to see their particular vision come to pass.

An interesting side note to all is that is that neither Buddhism, Hinduism, nor Shintoism and any of the Shamanic religions contain this type of doomsday scenario, which is at the core of the three Abrahamic faiths. For the Buddhists, it's more of a natural, cosmic event. Think of it as the Big Bang in reverse followed by a simultaneous new Big Bang and the cycle of creation repeats. In Hinduism, which also follows a cyclical philosophy, the god Vishu returns in the final comic cycle (known as a "kalpus") as the god or avatar "Kulki", on a white horse carrying a flaming sword resembling a comet with a long tail, and destroys the forces of evil which has come to destroy all those seeking enlightenment. Interestingly, this final, fourth, cycle is known as the "Kali Yuga", which so happens to be our present one. Once this destruction takes place, the cycle of creation repeats.

The majority of shamanic or "natural" religions such as Wicca, paganism, Native American, Tengri, and so forth, all have their take on how things end, but they tend to believe that Mankind in general is blame, not any specific individual or entity is the cause. Mankind loses its connection to the Earth and to Nature. As a result, we destroy ourselves out of our own willful ignorance, arrogance, and old fashion greed. In a sense, Nature fights back to rid itself of what is "making it sick" as some of these religions believe. The Mayans predicted that we will (and have) enter a final cycle whereby there will be great change. However, it will not make an "end" has some have tried to predict. Just the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, and with all ends and new beginnings, there is change, often major change. It reminds me of a line from Frank Herbert's novel Dune in describing religion and politics, "the religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows".

So, just what does all of this have to do with politics? Actually a lot. There was time, not very long ago historically, where religion and politics were one in the same; different sides of the same coin. In some societies, such as exist in Islam, it still is. However, there seems to be a unconscious belief in the other two Abrahamic religions which hasn't fully divorced itself from the political secular and the private religious. At the same time, the native or natural religions may be on to something. We have, as a species, lost our way. Violence has dramatically increased, especially over matters of religion. Instead of allowing each other the right to believe or not believe as we decide, we're seeing an dramatic increase by some that all must comply or die.

That's wrong any way you look at it in my opinion. Whatever choice we make is ours and ours alone. If there is a Hereafter or some Divine Justice, then that's between us as individuals and that entity, not some person who claims to know the Divine Mind and what's best for us. It was just a few weeks ago that two Scandinavians girls were murdered; beheaded by a group of "men" who thought that by lobbing off the heads of these two innocent girls, they were appeasing their god! Throughout Europe, and increasingly in the US, Australia, and elsewhere, we see the same group demanding that all must "submit" or face death (of course, if we pay a tax and forfeit our natural rights, we get to live at their discretion). That ideology is fundamentally opposed to both Western and Eastern Thought. It seeks to deny us as individuals the right of free choice. It imposes a tyranny which is nothing less than enslavement.

However, every religion, philosophy, government, or political ideology which attempts to prohibit independent thought, the questioning of its so-called "authority", or our blind obedience to it is nothing less enslavement by other means. This "disease"--- for lack of a better term---is spreading across the world like one of those apocalyptic black clouds. If it's allowed to go unchecked, it will lead to either the shackling of the Human Spirit or to its destruction. Ultimately, we are our own deliverers; our own "messiahs". We are the ones who've fashioned the shackles and we are the ones who have the keys to unlock those shackles and our potential as a species. We can have faith, but it will be us as individuals and together, who must save Humanity.



Dome of the Rock Shrine

Buddhist Theories About the End of the World

Hindu Eschatology

Apocalypse Prophecies: Native End of the World Teachings

Understanding No-Go Zones: What Are The Outcomes?

We've all heard or seen the term. It often shows up on the news and "talking head" political shows, and even on our social media sites from time to time. It's often used in conjunction with stories about war zones, and more recently, in places where it's simply to dangerous for ordinary people to venture (and just as often, too dangerous for even the police to patrol). But what is it really? What does it mean to have a "no-go zone" in your community, and where are these forbidden zones starting to become more prevalent?
As I said, "no-go zones" are typically found in war zones. They are often referred to as "exclusion zones", meaning that there could be unexploded ordinance hiding in the rubble, as well as landmines (which are the single deadliest weapon when it comes to civilian deaths).

It also means that the area is likely unsecure, with a high probability of roving enemy combatants lurking about (especially snipers).
As in years past, these area were often marked with warning signs (like with a large "Warning" in various in various languages, accompanied by a skull and crossbones---never a good sign). Entry into these zone are done so at one's own risk. There is no guarantee that anyone entering these zones will be provided with any type of assistance, be it due to getting lost, captured, injured, or wounded (and if killed, it's very unlikely anyone is coming for your body).

Of course, not all no-go zones are in places of conflict. In fact, most aren't located in or near a active war zone. The majority of no-go zones are actually found in various cities and towns where divergent (and unassimilated) populations attempt to enforce their own laws; independent of existing local laws. This includes roving patrols who harass, detain, and fine anyone who fails to comply. They are attempts to apply their own traditions, culture, and religious restrictions. In some cases, they may even attempt to "arrest" an individual and bring them before a religious tribunal where some type penalty of is applied. It's also common that these communities expand the tribunals into a de facto government.

In addition, this application as described above, usually have the support of the local population. These zones come about when individuals from either the same country or with a similar culture, religion, etc. settled in a certain area and begin to tacitly apply their cultural and/or religious values on their own street, or block, and then join with others to expand it to cover blocks, and eventually entire sections of a community. Typically, this begins subtly; with polite requests and calls for inclusion, tolerance, and openness.

As their numbers increase, these "request" begin to take a change in tone. They start to become more assertive. As the numbers continue to grow, so the growth of likeminded individuals, who bring with them their extended families, their businesses, and (naturally) their biases, traditions, and values. Often, at the same time, as these numbers grow, native populations begin to leave; not feeling safe or disliking the changes they are seeing. At some eventual tipping point, terms such as "tolerance" and "inclusion" start losing their original meaning, and are replaced with words like "compliance" and "dictate".

Somewhere during this transformation, the emerging population becomes unsatisfied with just those within their own community abiding by their value systems, and begin to apply it to others. Again, this usually starts as a "suggestion" or "request" in the name of "tolerance", but after a while, escalates to becoming compulsory, to the point where it supplants local law. Attempts by law enforcement to apply local law, or even conduct routine patrols in these communities, is view as an intrusion; an attempt to impose "foreign" laws on them!

As a result, the migrant population often responds violently by harassing the legal authorities, from verbal or physical threats (and, perhaps some general pushing and shoving) to becoming increasingly belligerent, up to and including open attacks, riots, destroying property, throwing rocks, "Molotov cocktails" or other homemade bombs, and so forth (it's not uncommon that afterwards, these same groups will demand the government clean up the mess caused by the rioters and restore their damaged property).

At this point the area is generally declared a "no-go zone", although governments often attempt to soften the obvious negative connotation of an area uncontrollable by the local authorities and use terms like "sensitive urban area", "vulnerable area", "exposed" or extreme exposed" zones, a "sundown area", as well as "closed zones" (which, by the way, all these apply to the native population, not to the migrants inside the area So when they say "stay out", they mean you). As an aside, there have been several attempts by journalists to cover these areas from the inside. Many who do are often meet with the same hostility unless they first obtain permission from the tribunal, and then only with an assigned escort, who also censor what is and what isn't covered.

So where are these so-called "sensitive" areas to be found? While they're are pretty much located just about everywhere, they are quickly popping up throughout Europe, especially in Western Europe. The idyllic country of Sweden has some 53 of these areas (with 15 of them classified as "particularly exposed" by the Swedish police). Germany has at least 40 such areas according to some police reports; perhaps more. Paris has approximately 25 such no-go zones, with dozens of others scattered about in France's major cities and towns such as Toulouse, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Avignon (one French police officer described crime as a "leisure activity" in these zones).

In the Lowland countries of Holland and Belgium, they too have their "no-go zones", although the Dutch are a bit more sensitive about it and often vigorously deny any such zones exist, though locals will likely beg to differ. The same for Belgium, though locals will nonchalantly suggest outsiders might want to skip the tour through Molenbeek (one local taxi cab driver said felt like a "seething North Africa ghetto" as author Robert Chamlers wrote in a article for the British edition of "GQ Magazine" on June 21, 2017 ).

Norwegian officials also deny they have any "no-go zones", though they might want to check with the local police and citizenry. Police officers have reported several cases of being attacked and "aggressive" responses to their presence (one police officer reported that Gonland, a district of Oslo, was "more Muslim than Morocco". Locals report of roving gangs, often targeting unaccompanied females and gays, amid rising violent crime (sexual crimes are perhaps the most serious issue, and are not just here, but reported throughout European countries with high migrant populations).

Denmark too has its share of growing "exposed" areas as well as what the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rassmussen, calls "parallel societies"; unintegrated communities with their own laws and language. However, the Danish PM insists that he will not allow Denmark to suffer the same fate as Sweden and other European countries, and has refused to permit any majority migrant neighborhoods, and if necessary, will forced integration into Danish society (which I'm sure it will be...kicking and screaming all the way).

Of course, of the countries with the largest number of "exposed zones" is the UK (in terms of dozens through the country). England has perhaps the largest growing non-native populations of any country in Europe, outside of perhaps Germany. In the industrial city of Birmingham, the native population will make up just 48% of the population by 2019 (an entire decade than originally predicted). The same trend includes cities like Leeds, Manchester, York, London, Luton, and others. In fact, at the current rate, somewhere around the year 2040 or 2050, native Britons will be a minority throughout England due to low native birth rates, an increasing external immigration with matching high birth rates (this is known as "population replacement"). As an aside, unlike its fellow European neighbors, at least 2/3 (68%) of the migrants entering the country are Asian, principally from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, and not the Middle East.

While this issue of "no-go zones" seems to be primarily a "European problem" at this time, there is no reason to assume it will remain one. Both Canada and the United States has had issues of immigrant populations refusing to integrate. This ranges from the influx of illegal immigrants, to refusal to learn the native language and adapt to local laws. It also includes criminal complicity of individuals, businesses, and organizations (mostly religious) who are intent, for their own gain, to aid and abed these individuals (as an aside, other countries such as Australia, are experiencing a similar problem too. Mexico and South America have had less problems with illegal or unintegrated populations due to strict immigration laws and enforcement).

Although there are existing punitive laws for this, they have rarely been enforced, especially during the eight years of the Obama Regime. As a result, taxpayers have been stuck with the bill, which amounts to some $113 billion dollars annually (some figures are slightly higher and some lower, depending on how its calculated. But regardless, it's still a substantial figure which could be avoided). Europe's "open door" policy has proven to be more than a mere mistake or miscalculation. It has proven to be national suicide. The great Teddy Roosevelt (my personal favorite president) once said that while immigrants, with all their energy and innovation were welcome, this country has no room for divided loyalties. If you came to this country, you did so a future American; hyphenated Americans need not apply.

I agree with ole "Rough and Ready Teddy". If you come here with the intent to learn our laws; adapt to our collective traditions, values, and learn the language, then great. Come on in! If, on the other hand, you intend to recreate your country with perhaps a different climate (and especially at taxpayer expense), then I suggest you keep on going. If you're here just to make a buck or two, that's fine too. Just do it legally and get a "green card". We must not become a "Balkanized" America, complete with border checks and "sensitive zones" within our own country. This is the same mistake which has befallen other nations down through history (usually in the name of altruism and tolerance). Let's hope it division is never allowed to take root here.


Germany No-Go Zones: Police Afraid to go into lawless areas after open-door


Inside Germany's No-Go zones: Part One-North Rhineland-Westphalia

Are there police no-go zones in France? The police say yes


Europe's no-go zones: Inside the lawless ghettos that breed and harbor terrorists

Stealth Jihad is alive and well in Canada

Danish PM Warns of No-Go Zones

Do We Really Need NATO?

Introduction and History

NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A military mutual defense pact which came out of the ashes of World War II; midwife to the birth of the Cold War. It was created in response to an aggressively expanding USSR under Premier Joseph Stalin and nations "liberated" from retreating Nazi forces in 1944 and '45 by advancing Russian troops. The alliance which once included Great Britain, France, the US, and Soviet Russia during its struggle against Hitler and the Axis powers along with its allies, first faltered and then disintegrated soon after the war ended. The Western allies united to save starving Germans, still living in rubble of a war torn Berlin, by airlifting food, medicine, and supplies via the ingenious "Berlin Airlift" of 1947, just as an "Iron Curtain" fell across Eastern Europe as British Prime Minister and former war leader Winston Churchill so succinctly put it. From the Russian perspective, however, the allies planned to "gang up" on Russia; perhaps even invade. After all, it had happened before---Napoleon in 1812, expeditionary forces led by England and the US during the dark days of Russia's Civil War following the 1917 Revolution at Archangel, twice by Germany (once in World War I and again in World War II). Even Japan had seized Russian territory in 1907. Russia needed a buffer zone. Besides, could "the People's Revolution" afford to be contaminated by Capitalism? Many returning Russian soldiers---especially officers---and former prisoners of war, were regrettably exposed to "decadent" Western values, had been shot; each bullet a vaccination to protect Mother Russia.

Who is in the Club?

Formed in 1949, on the heels of what many would call its ideological antithesis, the United Nations, NATO originally consisted of 12 nations who pledged mutual military support in the event of a Russian invasion of the West. It's premise was that an attack on one represented an attack on all. NATO members also agreed to provide mutual crisis or emergency assistance in case of a natural or manmade disaster, and to assist with general security. Of the 12 nations, all were European with the exception of Canada and the US.

Within Europe, France and Great Britain represented the two key anchors, although both had been decimated militarily, economically, and in terms of a military age population (much as both had been following the Napoleonic Wars and again by World War I). Iceland, also a founding member, has no military, although it does have a small Coast Guard and agreed to assist with training and logistics. Other founding members included Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Denmark, Italy (a former Axis nation), and Holland. In 1952, Greece and Turkey were added. West Germany joined in 1955, with the last member before the USSR's collapse in 1999, Spain, becoming a member in 1982.

The 2% Solution...Or Problem?

Each member agreed to contribute a minimum of 2% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to the mutual defense, active participation in military games, R&D, joint and cross training, and assuming administrative leadership roles so that no nation would have to bear the total or even majority costs of the alliance. Each nation is required to prepare and submit "Capability Targets", such as personnel and equipment commitments. However, given the disparities in GDP, economic and/or political stability, some nations have fallen short of the 2% minimum recommendation while other nations, especially the US, have contributed far and away the lion's share. Greece's economic instability has made it exceedingly difficult to meet the 2% goal while Italy's fragile government has made it equally difficult. Spain and Portugal are both relatively poor nations, while other nations such as Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg simply lack the population and economic wherewithal, to contribute sufficient dollars. Iceland, as stated before, lack a military altogether, and thus contributes approximately 1% toward training and logistics.

That means the bulk of the costs falls on countries like France, the UK, and the US. As an aside, NATO member Turkey has become increasingly non-democratic in light of the rise of extremist Islam domestically and regionally, plus indirect conflicts with other allies of member nations such as Israel, South Africa, and India. This has become more significant since 1999 and the implosion of the USSR (more on that in a moment). So, given the shift away from a common cause, domestic politics and economics, changes in geopolitics, not to mention technology in terms of delivery systems, how practical is NATO really?

The Big Bear in the Room

Russia, since 1945, was always seen as the "big bear" in the room, along with its on again/off again ideological ally, Communist China (China also counts among its allies North Korea and India's nemesis, Pakistan). At its peak, Russia could field the largest number of armor division of any country in the world; the second largest number of attack and support aircraft, and the third largest number of ground troops. Russia also has one of the best special forces units, the Spetsnaz, in the world; comparable to America's SEAL teams, the UK's SAS, or Israel's Sayeret. Where Russia lacked--its Navy (in terms of surface vessels and access to warm water ports), it made up in terms of anti-ship guided missiles and the world's largest submarine fleet, R&D (much of Russia's early post WWII technology came from captured German scientists, and later, from reversed Western sources), it continued to improve in terms of capability and deployment. Plus, the USSR had a first rate space program, for not just manned space exploration, but in terms of satellites. However, an inadequate infrastructure contributed to the reputation of Russian military hardware being poorly constructed. Soviet military philosophy placed more emphasis on quantity over quality (case in point, the Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle, the most popular and mass produced weapon of its type in the world).

Nevertheless, Russia created a "buffer" zone, comprised of countries it overran at the end of the Second World War out of which it created the seven member Warsaw Pact in 1955. These included Poland, East Germany, Albania, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. In addition, there was Tito's Yugoslavia, and effectively, Finland (remember too that the USSR consisted of Russia proper along with 15 "republics"). In addition, Russia had (and still maintains) a sizeable nuclear "first strike" and redundant response capability. This provided an effective counterbalance to NATO. The alliance officially lasted until 1991, although East Germany left the previous year to reunite with West Germany.

Same Ole Fears...and Some Brand New Ones

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991, and in 1999, the once feared USSR was no more. Various former republics went their own way; some seeking to align themselves along cultural and religious lines, especially the countries with large Muslim populations. Many, such as Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia sought closer relations with the West. Some, such as Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary wanted to redevelop their traditional roles, while counties such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia broke apart into the their ethnical components, with some seeking to maintain close contact with Russia while others looked westward.

Since the implosion of the USSR, Russia has emerged much more democratic and capitalistic, though not to the degree as the West, which, given Russia's history of absolute rule, makes perfect sense. Additionally, Russia has had a "love/hate" relationship with the West since at least the reign of Peter the Great. It's a nation with one foot in the West and the other in the Asiatic East. Perhaps of that, it has had a "redheaded stepchild" complex as well; it never quite fit in with the West or the East, though I think its preference was always towards the West. However, given its location far to the east of Europe's cultural and economic centers, periodic isolationism, and invasions from the West, it has rightfully developed something of a " twice bitten" mentality.

During the Cold War, Russia faced nuclear tipped missiles literally on its borders and aimed at its population centers (this was at the heart of the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis for instance). While other European nations, as well as the US, faced a similar prospect, those missiles were hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Nowadays, many of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now members of NATO, including the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Albania, the three Baltic States, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. In effect, providing Russia with what it has feared all along and sought to prevent with the eastern buffer---being nearly surrounded by a potentially hostile force.

While most of us seriously doubt the US or any other NATO member would initiate an attack on Russia, the prospect, from their point of view, is certainly there, especially with the latest full scale NATO military "war games" taking place within miles of the Russian border. It would be like having nuclear weapons aimed at the US on our Mexican and Canadian borders along with both Canada, Mexico, and the rest of Latin America conducting "war games" aimed at us, including naval and air operations. It would make us feel a bit uncomfortable to say the least. Since the breakup of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, Russia has formed a new, more economic, alliance with the nations of India, Brazil, and China (the so-called BRIC nations), plus close ties with Belarus, the Crimea, Syria and Iran (which has close ties to China as well).

Given the animosity between China and India, it's doubtful there would be any military cooperation between the two, however, there could be some independent cooperation directly with Russia. Besides, China and Russia could best be described as "frienemies". Iran would jump at the chance to challenge the West, and especially "the Great Satan", the US. Brazil might provide logistical support while Syria is mess and couldn't be expected to provide any assistance other than logistical. Meanwhile, both Belarus and Crimea are firmly attached to Russia by a common history and economic necessity.

Is There Common Cause?

So, is there still a need for NATO? As originally envisioned, I would say no. The "big bad bear" of the East no longer exists. Europe now depends on Russian oil and gas...and potential investment opportunities, especially as a warming climate and newer technology has made accessing the natural resources of Siberia more practical and financially feasible. Plus the globalization of the world's economy, has made international trade almost essential. Additionally, the United States is no longer capable of serving as the world's unofficial "policeman". The US is suffering from its own internal instabilities, with many economists, sociologists, and political scientists predicting a significant decline (or perhaps fall) of the US as the world's superpower.

Already, the US had dropped to second place in terms of the largest economy and is predicted to drop to third within the next decade. America has seen the near evaporation of the Middle Class and the widest income gap in its history. Academically, America barely makes the bottom half of the second tier (and in several subjects, America public schools are on par with some second and third world nations). There is an unprecedented disconnect between Washington and the rest of America, with Congress, the Presidency, and even Judicial System maintaining near single digit approval ratings. Lastly, America is no longer a "representative democracy", and hasn't been for awhile. It's now an Oligarchy; rule by a corporate plutocracy which operates hand in glove with the government.

Lastly, there is a new enemy which threatens Russia and the West, if not the world, equally. That enemy is the advent of extremist Islam, whose goal is the overthrow of democracy in any of its forms, Communism, and all non-Islamic religions and replace it with a theocratic Caliphate. Russia has the longest border of a country in the world with nations with an Islamic majority; some of whom are home to extremist factions. This virulent form of Islam knows no other ideology and recognizes no borders. It seems to me that the goal of mutual protection should be redirected from passé Cold War mentality (and efforts to revive it) and focused on mutual preservation of national sovereignty. I further think that this new alliance should include Russia, who has just as much if not more to lose than China, India, Australia, Southeast Asia, Latin America, Canada, or the United States. It's time we recognize our mutual threat and act together before we fall separately.



How NATO is funded and who pays for what


Here's who is paying the agreed-upon share to NATO and who isn't


NATO Summit: Which members are not pulling their weight with defense spending?


How Vladimir Putin's military compares with the West