Graffë Forums - Blogs - Torcer Arcana

Graffë Forums - Blogs - Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/blog.php?91-Torcer-Arcana en Thu, 14 May 2026 02:13:16 GMT vBulletin 60 https://www.graffes.com/forums/images/misc/rss.jpg Graffë Forums - Blogs - Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/blog.php?91-Torcer-Arcana TOR: The Jedi Consular! https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?212-TOR-The-Jedi-Consular! Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:07:19 GMT ---Quote--- Jedi Consulars channel the power of the Force for strength in combat and wisdom in diplomacy. Years of arduous training and meditation have sharpened Consulars’ minds to cut to the truth as cleanly as their Lightsabers cut through their foes. Whether unlocking long forgotten mysteries...

Jedi Consulars channel the power of the Force for strength in combat and wisdom in diplomacy. Years of arduous training and meditation have sharpened Consulars’ minds to cut to the truth as cleanly as their Lightsabers cut through their foes. Whether unlocking long forgotten mysteries of the Jedi, raising armies to fight for the Republic or engaging in mortal combat with Dark Lords of the Sith, the Consulars’ deep attunement to the Force gives them all the power they need to rise to the occasion with poise and balance.

Intimate attunement with the deepest Force mysteries gives Jedi Consulars the insight and empathy to deftly handle charged conflicts that confound even the most cunning Senators and governors—but Consulars know when it’s time to talk and when it’s time to fight. When negotiations turn aggressive, Consulars demonstrate their gifts of foresight—anticipating and deflecting enemy attacks with fluid strikes from their dual-bladed Lightsaber.

http://www.swtor.com/info/holonet/classes/jedi-consular ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?212-TOR-The-Jedi-Consular! <![CDATA[Star Wars: The Old Republic "Jedi Knight" Class Update]]> https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?210-Star-Wars-The-Old-Republic-quot-Jedi-Knight-quot-Class-Update Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:33:04 GMT Over at the “Star Wars: The Old Republic” website, Bioware has updated their “Holonet” entry for the Jedi Knight (http://swtor.com/info/holonet/classes/jedi-knight)! ---Quote--- *Valiant, Determined, Guardian of Peace* A symbol of hope in dark times, the Jedi Knight stands for the legacy... Over at the “Star Wars: The Old Republic” website, Bioware has updated their “Holonet” entry for the Jedi Knight!

Valiant, Determined, Guardian of Peace

A symbol of hope in dark times, the Jedi Knight stands for the legacy of the Jedi Order—more than twenty-thousand years of protecting the Republic and keeping the peace across the galaxy. Though Jedi Knights have served as generals, guerilla fighters, and warriors for generations, their legendary combat prowess faces its greatest test during this age.

Now we have some basis for speculating about what kind of class the “Jedi Knight” will be. Ideas? ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?210-Star-Wars-The-Old-Republic-quot-Jedi-Knight-quot-Class-Update Nostalgia Mini Review https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?207-Nostalgia-Mini-Review Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:07:47 GMT Nostalgia is a JRPG set on Earth in an alternative 19th C. Your dad is an Indiana Jones style adventurer, and you’re his son who ends up following in dear ol' dad’s footsteps. What makes this game unique its setting and that makes it just unique enough to set it apart. The setting is roughly comparable to Ptolus, or a Kipling story. The characters aren’t bad and tend to follow Victorian era archetypes; I’ve yet to be annoyed (cf Star Ocean).

The gameplay itself is very standard turn based combat, with a WoW/Diabloesque skill tree. Each character has a preferred weapon type; for example, the protagonist uses a sword, while the first character to join you uses pistols. There are random (Boo, Hiss) encounters, but it’s not too bad (Lazy developers!). If you’re looking for a combat system that’s unique, look elsewhere, but despite being derivative of previous JRPG turn based combat, it’s still fun.

The adventure map is in 3D, and the art is about as good as the DS can handle. The developers built in an auto map, which fills in as you explore. Nostalgia isn’t a game in which you’ll get lost. I felt that the city maps were too small.

You move around the overworld in an Airship. The world map is Earth, populated by major cities of the era (e.g., London, Cairo, etc). Just like other JRPGs, there are random encounters when traveling the over-world. Airship combat is also turn based, and your ship can be upgraded and become more powerful (Your Airship is basically a character). It’s a nice diversion, just make sure you bring along plenty of items to repair your ship.

The Plot is linear, but there’s also an “Adventurer’s Association,” which offers optional quests. These optional quests are probably not really optional, since they provide a ton of XP and allow you to advance within the guild.

If you're a fan of traditional turn based JRPGS, then check out Nostalgia. ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?207-Nostalgia-Mini-Review Anti-Israel Posters and Tactics of Realist, Internationalist and Values Critiques IV https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?157-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques-IV Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:56:25 GMT Those accusing Israel of violating International Law and engaging in War crimes are silent when it comes to Hamas or other Palestinian terrorist organizations. It’s a War Crime for a force to use civilians as shields, yet Hamas intentionally operates amongst schools, hospitals and mosques, with... Those accusing Israel of violating International Law and engaging in War crimes are silent when it comes to Hamas or other Palestinian terrorist organizations. It’s a War Crime for a force to use civilians as shields, yet Hamas intentionally operates amongst schools, hospitals and mosques, with the intent of maximizing Civilian casualties. Nary a peep is heard about this from the “International Community.” Hamas launched thousands of rocket attacks into Israeli towns, yet despite intentionally attacking civilians violating international law and being war crimes, the international community meets these with silence.

Posts at this website mirror this disparate treatment and selective outrage towards Israel. The examples are too numerous to list. Every perceived Israeli wrong is magnified, every Palestinian wrong is ignored, and any time anything negative about Israel can be posted, it is, even when the source amounts to rumors.

When it comes to the faith placed in International Institutions and International Law, there are two types of people represented here: well meaning, but naïve people who adhere so tightly to their ideals that they ignore the reality of how these institutions selectively target Israel, and those who don’t give a damn about the UN or International Law, unless they can use them as a cudgel with which to beat Israel over the head with.

The Values Critique

I crudely lump those who believe that American foreign policy actions should reflect American values into the category of Neoconservative. I’m hesitant to do so since the word has been twisted beyond its original meaning to invariably b used as a pejorative by liberals to mean “Republican policy I don’t agree with,” or as a euphemism for “Jew” when the speaker wants to avoid using the word Jew. In any event, I’ll still use the word in its classic sense, and strongly believe that American values should generally influence our policy choices.

Critics of Israel who a week ago argued that America should practice RealPolitik, argued yesterday that it should defer to International Institutions and Law, see no inconsistency in then arguing that we should not support Israel because it does not act in accordance with American values. I offer two retorts to this allegation.

First, Israel, more than most other countries and certainly more than any other country in the region, generally acts in accordance with American values. The IDF goes to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties, and given the existential threats Israel faces, its all the more remarkable how restrained it is. In many respects Israel’s military does America’s ideals more proud than our own country would, because I’m not ashamed to admit that as an American citizen I’d expect our Military to inflict far more destruction upon our enemies if our enemies did to us what they do to Israel on a continuous basis.

Secondly, who do Israel’s critics think they are kidding? After arguing for realpollkitk, and the sanctity of the UN, they now assert that what really matters are America’s strict adherence to its values in its foreign policy? The same people who advocate for friendly relations with Arab dictatorships, Islamic Theocracies, and South American kleptocracies, despite an endless litany of human rights violations, would now have us believe that we should cut Israel loose because it occasionally doesn’t scrupulously live up to America’s values. The Jews have a word for this: Chutzpah.

It’s impossible to make sense of the incoherence among the Realist, Internationalist and “Values” foreign policy critics of Israel unless its concluded that these critiques are merely tactics used by people who will oppose Israel no matter what, because of what Israel is, not because of what it does, or whether it advances US Interests, adheres to International standards or represents American values. ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?157-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques-IV Anti-Israel Posters and Tactics of Realist, Internationalist and Values Critiques III https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?156-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques-III Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:54:47 GMT _The Internationalist Critique_ The Internationalists put their faith in International Institutions and International law. When it comes to Israel, we may find yesterday’s realist has become Today’s Internationalist. The most vocal opponents of Israel only care about Internationalism as a... The Internationalist Critique

The Internationalists put their faith in International Institutions and International law. When it comes to Israel, we may find yesterday’s realist has become Today’s Internationalist. The most vocal opponents of Israel only care about Internationalism as a means to cudgel Israel. However, let’s put that aside and focus on real Internationalists, those who really have no natural animus for Israel, but have an idealists’ faith in International Institutions.

International Institutions are not impartial, but are hopelessly Anti-Israel. This stems from simple arithmetic. There are 21 Arab states, 57 states that are members of the Organization of Islamic States, and 1 Jewish state. These states almost all oppose Israel’s existence because their religion views the land as part of the “House of Islam.” As such, they wield their numbers and resulting influence in the International Institutions in order to bend these institutions to take an institutional position opposing Israel.

The latest manifestation of this was this week’s Durban II, a project of the UN’s Human Rights Counsel which predictably degenerated into bashing Israel and the EU’s walkout on Achmejinidad’s vitriolic Jew bashing speech. The States on the UNHRC have utilized the UNHRC in order to launch a constant ideological assault against Israel, and proving once again that Jew hatred often results in collateral damage to those who ignore it; they have twisted the UNHRC into a mockery of the very human rights it was created to advance.

The UNHRC has several of the world’s worst human rights violators on it, including China, Russia, Angola, and Cuba. The UNHRC obsessively focuses on Israel, the exclusion of other countries. The UNHRC has a group that focuses on human rights abuses by Israel, and another group that focuses on all other countries. The UNHRC voted to make potential human rights abuses by Israel a focus of every UNHRC session, the only country singled out in this way. The UNHRC has specifically condemned Israel 9 times, and not condemned any other countries, even the Sudan which is actively engaged in Genocide, or Russia, which committed grave atrocities in Chechnya.

I could go on all day. It would take pages to document the UNHRC’s obsessive focus on Israel to the exclusion of all other human rights issues. The General Assembly is only marginally better, and Israel remains the only country on earth not eligible to sit on the Security Council.

If you are an Internationalist who believes in the ideal of International Institutions, the irrefutable conclusion based on the evidence is that the United Nations and its Human Rights Council have been turned into biased instruments which obsessively focus on condemning Israel and do little to advance human rights. The Organization of Islamic States have hijacked the UN and the UNHRC into a cudgel with which to bash Israel over the head with, and non Islamic human rights abusing regimes like Russia, China and Cuba are more than happy to oblige the OIC since obsessive focus on Israel keeps the international spotlight off of their own abuses.

Ironically, if you are an Internationalist who truly cares about Human Rights, then placing faith in the UN or the International Community, and allowing the UN to set the terms of the debate, harm the very cause of Human Rights that you care about. Turning a blind eye to the “International Community” and the UN’s bias against and obsessive focus on Israel doesn’t just victimize Israel; global Human Rights are collateral damage.

Concern for Human Rights is laudable, but when one country is singled out for criticism to the exclusion of most other countries, almost all of which have worse human rights violations, then the concern is a pretense. As Mr. Stepehns of the Wall Street journal notes, the “International Community” has selective moral outrage when it comes to Israel:

Here's a contrast to ponder. Since the beginning of the second intifada in the autumn of 2000, roughly 6,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire. That figure includes combatants, as well as those killed in January's fighting in Gaza.

As for Chechnya, there are no solid figures for the number of civilians killed since the second war began in late 1999; estimates range anywhere between 25,000 and 200,000. Chechnya's population, at a little over one million, is about one-third or one-fourth that of the Palestinians. That works out to between 25 to 200 Chechen deaths per 1,000, as against 1.5 to 2 Palestinian deaths per 1,000.

Now type the words "Palestine" and "genocide" into Google. When I did so Monday, I got 1,630,000 results. Next, substitute "Chechnya" for "Palestine." The number is 245,000. Taking the Google results as a crude measure of global outrage, that means the outrage over the Palestinian situation was 6.6 times greater than over the Chechen one. Yet Chechen fatalities were anywhere between 13 to 133 times greater.

Final calculation: With an "outrage" ratio of 6.6 to one, but a proportional kill ratio of one to 13 (at the very low end), it turns out that every Palestinian death receives somewhere in the order of 28 times the attention of every Chechen death. Remember that in both cases we're mainly talking about Muslims being killed by non-Muslims.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027104509836989.html

Mr. Stephens then analyzes why the reason for the disparity in outrage may be, finally arriving at the only conclusion that truly explains it – the Palestinians are the perceived victims of the Jews. Unfortunately, the so-called “International Community’s concern over human rights is mot often about who the perceived perpetrators are rather than the actual actions. The disparity between outrage over Chechnya and Israel is hardly the only example. It’s revealing though in that it’s a concrete example with clear numerical evidence that exposes its not really concern for human rights, or even caring about the Palestinians that motivates the focus on Israel’s human rights record.

At no time was this selective concern for human rights and International Law clearer than during the recent Israeli offensive against Hamas. Hamas had fired thousands of rockets into populated Israeli towns over a 3 year period. Such an attack against a civilian population is a War Crime under International Law. Hamas refused Israel and Egypt’s requests to halt the firing, and conducted an air and ground campaign against Hamas and the rockets. The world, which had been silent during the thousands of rocket attacks, condemned Israel and alleged that Israel had violated International law. Of all of the conflicts Israel has engaged in, the reactions of the International Community to this one showed the clearest bias.

The right of Self Defense is a basic article of International Law, enshrined in the UN’s own charter. Despite this, Israel’s critics denied that Israel should be able to exercise its right to defend itself against thousands of rocket attacks launched from Hamas controlled Gaza. This was a restriction they placed only on Israel which they would never expect any other nation on earth to abide by. This exposed that their concern for adherence to International law was only a means to criticize and damage Israel.

Since 2006, the International Community invented a new concept of “Proportionality,” which it applies solely to Israel. Critics of Israel contend that a state which is attacked may only respond with force that is proportional to that used against it. Of course this is definition of the Doctrine of Proportionality is a misstatement with nothing to do with the actual doctrine meant solely to prohibit Israel from defending itself.

In fact, before the usual suspects of the Anti-Israel crowd twisted the doctrine to be use against Israel the Doctrine of Proportionality held that only the force necessary to achieve a particular military objective should be used. In the case of the Gaza/Hamas war of 2008/2009, Israel was restrained in its use of force to achieve the objectives of halting the rocket attacks. It specifically targeted the rockets and Hamas’ operational infrastructure necessary to fire them.

Few militaries though history have been so restrained in their use of force to achieve a particular objective. In fact, since the time of Clauswitz and Mahan, the operational doctrine of the US Military has been overwhelming force, not proportionality. This was the doctrine our Military employed after Pearl Harbor during WWII, its what General Powell employed during Gulf War I, and its what we all know our Military would employ in the event that America came under assault from thousands of rocket attacks.

If it’s not already obvious that the Doctrine of Proportionality applied against Israel is applied against no other state, we should consideration if it were it, such doctrine would encourage aggression and war. It’s the threat that a country will defend itself with overwhelming force that keeps potential aggressors from launching the attack in the first place. The doctrine of proportionality applied to Israel thus has the result of eliminating deterrence.

Of course those advocating for a proportionate Israeli response have no intention of universalizing the doctrines application, their goal is to allow Israel’s enemies to attack it with impunity while preventing Israel from acting in order to defend itself. No matter the principle of International law employed, it always follows the same pattern – selectively apply it to Israel, ignore it when applied to the Palestinians or other states. ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?156-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques-III Anti-Israel Posters and Tactics of Realist, Internationalist and Values Critiques II https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?155-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques-II Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:53:22 GMT _The Realist Critique _ The Realists claim that American support of Israel doesn’t advance US Interests. This is usually predicated upon the notion that since the Muslim world hates Israel, by supporting Israel, that hatred is directed at the US. This position is based on several false... The Realist Critique

The Realists claim that American support of Israel doesn’t advance US Interests. This is usually predicated upon the notion that since the Muslim world hates Israel, by supporting Israel, that hatred is directed at the US. This position is based on several false assumptions.

First, it focuses on the negative of Muslim discontent while ignoring the benefits an alliance with Israel beings. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The United States is allied with dozens of Liberal Democracies precisely because we recognize that doing so advances our interests. We share values, trade, science and, yes, security. Israel produces and trades exponentially more than any of its neighbors. Allying with a country with a political culture similar to our own and Western Europe’s serves our interest, which is why we are allied with the UK, France, Germany, and yes, Israel.

Israel also serves the very Realpolitik function of balancing the power in the Middle East in the United States favor. It’s amazing how the self purported Realists ignore that most fundamental of Realist doctrines, the Balance of Power, when it comes to Israel. It’s no coincidence that the Iranians use their Hezbollah proxies to the North (Hezbollah) and West (Hamas) to encircle Israel – the Iranians are attempting to extend their sphere of Influence – not only at Israel’s expense, but at the United State expense. It is absolute folly to imagine that sacrificing our support of Israel would cause the Iranians to suddenly engage in policy favorable to the United States. Iran, a Muslim Fundamentalist theocracy, has interests inherently opposed to the US interests and wholly independent of Iran’s obsessive hatred of the Jewish state.

What else would the United States gain by abandoning Israel, which of these Arab Dictatorships the Realists would have us trade our alliance with Israel for? Do we imagine that the Saudis, who gladly take out oil money as they fund thousands of Madrassahs that teach hatred of the US, would come to love us? What of secular dictatorships like Syria, so we really imagine that repressive political systems so diametrically opposed to our own and values so at odds with out own advance our interests to ally with? As if men like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela hate us because of Israel.

It’s simply not credible that abandoning an ally which provides us with tangible economic and security benefits, which serves to advance our sphere of influence in a vital strategic region and which shares our values would serve our interests based on the phantom promise that the Arab and Muslim states may like us better if we did so. Not only would we lose the benefits of our alliance with Israel, but the Muslim world wouldn’t like us better.

Of course to the purported Realists, they ignore both the benefits of the US alliance with Israel, overstate the costs, and advance a fantasy about the benefits of drawing closer with Arab dictatorships and the Iranian fundamentalists. For them the only reason that the US supports Israel is that the Jews control the United States. In order to mask that they are drawing upon the centuries old Jew hating canard of the “Jews controlling the world,” they talk of AIPAC’s all encompassing control of US foreign policy and seize upon the presence of any high ranking Jewish official in Government as proof of this control. For all of their double speak, it all amounts to the same thing – they’re just rebottling the old Jew hating myth of Jewish control in shiny new bottles, and using the pretense of Realism as a cover for what they’re doing.

As for the Blood and Treasure allegation, let’s talk about Blood. It’s a lie. American boys have not died for Israel, but Israeli boys have died for America. Israel fought 3 wars for its survival – in 1948, 1967 and 1973. The American military did not intervene to help Israel. Israel has fought several wars against Hezbollah and Hamas, and the American military did not intervene. America has not sacrificed “blood” for Israel.”

By contrast, Israel has sacrificed blood for America. On several occasions, Israel has agreed, under US pressure, to engage in yet the latest so-called “Peace Process.” Every time it ends with dead Jews. After Camp David failed in 2000, hundreds of Jews died. This was indirectly attributable to America pressuring Israel into the 1993-2000 Oslo process. I happened to support Oslo, but I hold no illusions that the cost of my support, the support of most American Jews, was ultimately a lot of shattered hopes for living in Peace and a lot of dead Jews.

As for American “Treasure,” its hard to take this sudden concern over 2 billion dollars seriously when it comes form the same people advocating a 3.2 TRILLION dollar federal budget. In any event, the financial aid we give Israel and Egypt is money well spent since it maintains the strategic balance of power in a vital region of US interest (One day of Iranian dominance, or a regional war would cause the US economy more damage than that annual aid), and supporting these relatively stable regimes is a better bet than relying upon dictatorships theocracies with agendas opposed to our own.

In the final analysis, when it comes to Israel, the so-called Realists end up not being Realists at all. ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?155-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques-II Anti-Israel Posters and Tactics of Realist, Internationalist and Values Critiques https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?154-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:52:42 GMT The latest Israel thread and my lack of interest in engaging the usual suspects of Anti-Israel posters got me thinking. In my years of debating on the Middle East, I’ve learned much about the tactics of Anti-Israel posters. In this post, Ill focus on three schools of foreign policy thought and... The latest Israel thread and my lack of interest in engaging the usual suspects of Anti-Israel posters got me thinking. In my years of debating on the Middle East, I’ve learned much about the tactics of Anti-Israel posters. In this post, Ill focus on three schools of foreign policy thought and how opponents of Israel utilize them against Israel both here and elsewhere.

Generally, American foreign policy thinking can be grouped into three broad categories: the Realists, the Internationalists and the so-called “Neoconservatives.” The Realists believe that a nation’s interests predominate over all other foreign policy considerations, be they human rights, or collective action. Internationalists tend to put their faith in collective institutions like the UN and emphasize diplomacy and “Soft power.” The ubiquitously misused term “NeoCons” believe that American power should be used to promote American values and that such use tends to advance American interests.

The key to understanding how opponents of Israel use these is to recognize that they will utilize Realism, Internationalism or “NeoConservative” critics against Israel depending upon what the circumstances allow. In other words, Israel’s most vocal opponents tend to not have a consistent foreign policy view; the only constant is that they are critical of Israel. If you follow Israel discussions, you’ll often see today’s foreign policy “Realist,” become tomorrow’s Internationalist and next week’s Neocon. ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?154-Anti-Israel-Posters-and-Tactics-of-Realist-Internationalist-and-Values-Critiques Myths of Destruction https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?57-Myths-of-Destruction Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:48:22 GMT Humanity’s fear of annihilation is as at least as old as human history. Civilizations express this primal fear through various myths. I use the term “myth,” not as commonly understood as “fiction,” but in the anthropological sense of a story expressing a particular cultural meaning. The... Humanity’s fear of annihilation is as at least as old as human history. Civilizations express this primal fear through various myths. I use the term “myth,” not as commonly understood as “fiction,” but in the anthropological sense of a story expressing a particular cultural meaning. The “annihilation myth’s” forms are as varied as they are fascinating, but exhibit several common traits:

1. Humanity’s immoral actions have offended the god(s) or G-d ;
2. The god(s) or G-d decide to visit destruction upon humanity and do so;
3. The gods or G-d stops before humanity is destroyed.

…and these myths usually involve water.

The ancient Egyptians told the following myth of destruction. The Sun god Ra grew angered when man came to disrespect him, engage in evil acts and disobey his laws. Ra sent vengeance upon Man in the form of the mother goddess Hathor, in her destructive aspect as Sekhmet. Appearing as a great tiger, Hathor/Sekhmet slaughtered all she could find in the land of the Nile, becoming literally drunk on slaughter and blood. Such was Hathor’s slaughter that Ra became frightened she would kill all of mankind, so Ra eventually tricked her into relenting, and as a result she was transformed from a goddess of destruction, into a goddess of love.

For thousands of years, the Mesopotamians told the following myth of destruction. The 11th tablet if the Epic of Gilgamesh recounts the world’s first flood story. Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality leads him to Utnapishtim (Summerian Ziusudra). Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh that he and his wife are the sole survivors of a great destructive flood that the gods visited upon mankind. The god Enki warned Utnapishtim of the flood, and after surviving it, was granted immortality.

The Biblical Flood myth holds much in common with the Sumerian and Akkadian version. The moral dimension is much more explicit in the biblical myth though (Perhaps because we’re missing some of the Mesopotamian version). G-d destroys mankind because it was wicked, and saves Noah because of his righteousness.

The modern secular humanist myths of destruction currently manifest in the same form of a climate catastrophe. Unlike the ancient myths which generally followed the same form with some variation, the Information age provides nearly infinite variety. The outline of the myth is that modern Humankind has sinned against nature in the form of CO2 (i.e., the by product of industrial civilization), and unless humankind repents, nature will visit destruction upon mankind.

A modern secular person may object to the later comparison of climate catastrophe to Ancient Near Eastern myths of destruction. After all, anthropomorphic climate change is born out by scientific consensus. However, I'm concerned with the Mythic aspects of Global Warming, the nexus of Science and Myth in modernity, and most importantly, Global Warming destructive myth existing independent of the consequence indicated by the science.

While there is a scientific consensus concerning Anthropomorphic Global Warming, there is not a scintilla of scientific support for the Armageddon scenarios I have grouped under the rubric of modern secular humanist destruction myth. Myth isn’t supposed to be literal though; myth expresses a cultural meaning. In the case of our modern myth though, what meaning? In understanding the meaning, it may help to compare and contrast the modern secular myth with the ancient Near Eastern myth.

All of the destructive myths express human fear about the end of civilization brought about by nature. In the Egyptian myth, the mother goddess is the destroyer, in the Mesopotamian, it’s the gods, in the biblical, it’s G-d, and in the modern version its climate. The commonality is an awareness of the dependence of human life and civilization on the whims of nature. The ancient myths reflect the reality of the early river valley civilizations and the periodic nature of feast and famine. The Egyptian and Mesopotamian myth differ in detail because their concerns are slightly different, given the predictable nature of the Nile’s annual inundation, as compared to the more varied patterns of the Tigris and Euphrates, nevertheless, both involve gods and goddesses visiting destruction upon humanity.

Our modern Secular myth differs too given that our concerns and perceptions are slightly different than that of the ancient world. We’re no longer dependent upon a river valley; modern civilization is Global, interdependence of civilization is Global, and perception is global. Whereas the ancients abstracted various forces of nature to deities, with our global perception we have abstracted these forces into “Climate,” or more anthropomorphically “Mother Earth.”

“Mother Earth” and Global Climate are concepts, abstract labels we apply to systems we scarcely understand, much as the ancients created the myths of Hathor/Sekhmet and the Flood in order to warn about the relationship of civilization to the destructive forces of nature. In this regard, there is no meaningful mythic distinction between the abstractions of the ancients and this abstraction of modernity.

Then too there is the moral dimension. Egyptian’s conceived of a world order (Maat), by disobeying this order, humanity invited destruction. The lesson from ancient Israel was to obey G-d’s commandments, or suffers divine retribution. The modern secular destruction myth has a moral dimension too, namely that the state of Modernity is immoral. The modern myth implicitly holds that global technical industrial civilization has sinned against a pure state of nature, and in response, nature will take vengeance upon humanity, unless it repents by rejecting aspects of modernity and returning to the natural state.

The modern may object that the modern destructive myths differ from the ancient myths because the modern myths are grounded in Science. This is a distinction without difference for two reasons. First, the Science supports a link between human industrial activity and temperature, but the Science does not support a link between human activity and Armageddon scenarios. The later is only finally understood when examined through the prism of myth.

Secondly, there was a rational basis for the destruction myths of Egypt and Mesopotamia, a basis as valid as our “scientific” basis. These were complex civilizations that required the hierarchical control necessary for irrigation, cities, trade and a complex web of social relationships. The well being of Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilization did depend upon adherence to a set of rules, and they used myth as a means of conveying this message. The rational basis for these myths did not transform them into literal truth.

I’d argue that the relationship between Egyptian and Mesopotamian Civilizations and catastrophe if fundamental rules were violated was far more immediate and obvious than that between CO2 emission and Global Climate catastrophe. Not to argue that their myths were more rational than ours, myths by their very nature defy rationality and convey meaning without reference to logic. I consider rationality solely because the modern secular climate catastrophe myths cloak themselves in the guise of Science and Rationality.

The ancients understood myth and didn’t necessarily literally believe that mother goddess Hathor was going to transform into a tiger and obliterate humanity in an orgy of blood. In this regard, the Ancient Egyptians were far wiser than we are, and had the good sense to include the world’s biggest kegger in their destruction myth. ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?57-Myths-of-Destruction Israeli “Ultimatums” and the Psychology of the Besieged. https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?56-Israeli-“Ultimatums”-and-the-Psychology-of-the-Besieged Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:36:08 GMT Israel is not issuing ultimatums to anyone, except Iran. It’s clear that even though most countries in the world agree that Iranian nuclear weapons would be disastrous, neither the EU, nor the United States is willing to act in order to prevent Iran from obtaining them. Israel has no choice but... Israel is not issuing ultimatums to anyone, except Iran. It’s clear that even though most countries in the world agree that Iranian nuclear weapons would be disastrous, neither the EU, nor the United States is willing to act in order to prevent Iran from obtaining them. Israel has no choice but to act, or be annihilated, even if that action may ultimately be fruitless.

It’s not in America or Europe’s interest for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. It’s unfortunate that it falls to a tiny country facing the existential threat of Genocide to act while the world sits impotently by. History’s lesson is that the consequence of relying on others for Jewish safety is ethic cleansing, pogroms and genocide. Israel exists because even the most obstinate of peoples has finally learned history’s lesson, and if it Israel does not act before Iran obtains the means to carry out its genocidal intent, then Israel has betrayed the very reason for its existence.

I can only hope that Iran gets the message and halts its nuclear program before military action becomes necessary. No one wants a war with Iran, least of all a tiny county of 6 million who are already exhausted by a fight for survival that few of us in the pampered West can hardly imagine anymore. Israel knows that sometimes you have to fight for survival, and for Israel that time is fast approaching.

Absent an existential threat, Israel gains nothing from a war with Iran, so contrary to this bizarre notion permeating here and in the so-called “International community,” there is no strong desire for War with Iran among Israel or Jews in general. That the International Community thinks otherwise is one of histories greatest ironies, since predominant Jewish thought is strongly pacifist. The only reason to act is the perception that Iran’s desire to obtain nukes is to do what it has suggested it wants to do – namely, eliminate the “Zionist Entity” in a great storm.

If Israel’s critics truly want to avert the potential coming War, rather than simply chanting thinly veiled canards about masters issuing orders , and regurgitate “anti-Zionist” boilerplate, then you need to understand actual Israeli and Jewish perception and psychology rather than retreat into preconceived imagined conspiracies. It doesn’t matter if you, the United States Government, or the EU believes that Iran wants to annihilate Israel in a nuclear conflagration. What matters is that Israel and a substantial percentage of the Jewish people believe it; it just happens to be that this belief is logically grounded quite firmly in actual Jewish historical experience. “Never again” should not simply be a feel good call for multicultural toleration (Although that is valuable); it should also be a call to defend a people’s lives and existence through force of arms, rather than passively hope that others will do it for you. “They” won’t - ever.

Israel is not demanding that the United States do anything, it is pleading with us to avert the seemingly inevitable War. Diplomacy only works when backed up by the threat of force, or mutual gain. The absence of the threat of force or any potential gain is why the EU’s negotiations with Iran over the last several years regarding Iran’s nuclear program have failed. Israel’s military exercise last week has provided Iran with the credible threat of force. It now falls to the EU and the US to use diplomatic means to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. Failing that, Israel will be forced to do what it always has had to do several times, both with and without help from the United States – fight for its very survival.

If the price for averting Genocide is losing the global popularity contest, then better to be unpopular and breathing than popular and dead. ]]> Torcer Arcana https://www.graffes.com/forums/entry.php?56-Israeli-“Ultimatums”-and-the-Psychology-of-the-Besieged