The Holocaust and accelerating pace of assimilation have transformed the Diaspora into a set of independent Jewish enclaves vibrant in spiritual life but completely lacking any national cohesion.
THE JERUSALEM POST
If a jew were to travel the world from Pinsk to Shanghai or from New York to Buenos Aires in the late 19th or the early 20th century, he would have no difficulty finding a community (either at the destination or at numerous locations on the way) not very different from the place he came from. Most of the fellow Jews he would meet at those distant and geographically spread out cities, towns and villages would be speaking his native or slightly varied Yiddish, would dress similarly, might be from the same region of the Russian Pale of Settlement or even have common relatives. For these people the Jewish world was the Ashkenazi world, where Yiddishkeit and Judaism were indistinguishable.
That created the feeling of nationhood unparalleled in the Jewish history of the past few millennia and provided the spiritual fuel for the political movement of its national self-determination, later called Zionism.
That world is almost completely gone and its last vestiges are dissipating in front of our eyes. The family aspect of nationhood, the personal closeness of one member of the collective to another has vanished.
The Holocaust and accelerating pace of assimilation have transformed the Diaspora into a set of independent Jewish enclaves often vibrant in terms of spiritual life but completely lacking any national cohesion or awareness outside of the host country.
This transformation is not without a precedent.
Such was the status quo of the Jewish world prior to the Emancipation (not to deny the idea of nationalism, even if not foreign to Jews, was inspired by its European counterparts). Hence, the cries of the end of the Diaspora or Jewish world in general are, to say the least, premature if not totally misplaced.
The Jewish world is changing dramatically. That is true and objective reality. What is needed now is to understand the root causes of the situation and adapt to the new reality without unnecessary panic and self-defeating fear of change.
THE FAMILY bonds provided the fuel for the feeling of the Jewish nationhood. The news of the pogroms in Tsarist Russia or Hebron made a Jew in New York, Paris or San Paulo feel personal pain. His fellow Jews were persecuted and massacred. It could well be his immediate family, close relatives or people he personally knew that were affected. The last expression of that phenomenon was the fight for the freedom of the Soviet Jewry (though definitely pursued with less vigor than the previous public campaigns as the processes weakening the bond were well in play by that time). One did not have to argue for the righteousness of the Jewish cause to fellow Jews.
One did not have to explain the political or social context of the events. As one does not have to explain a fellow family member why another one needs to be defended no matter what and under any circumstances. The Jews would rally to the cause in great numbers and contribute lavishly. The people in need of their help were concrete and identifiable.
The leaders of the community (both in the Diaspora and in Israel) would take this attitude for granted.
Alas, the world is changing and so are the Jews. The Holocaust destroyed those personal connections. Assimilation has completed the “disengagement.”
Yiddish is long gone as the Jewish lingua franca. Assimilation has exacerbated the situation by introducing a large number of Jews by “the choice of their spouses” (not to diminish their sincerity and the complexity of the decision). All of these factors have widened the existing gap between the Diaspora and Israel. While mainstream Israel is creating a very national secular culture deeply rooted in history, both far and near, the Diaspora is shifting away from its near national identity and rethinking Judaism in terms of universal values such as tikkun olam. That in conjunction with the Israel’s outdated assumption of the “family bond” creates a situation of cultural misunderstandings and outright hostility.
Thus a huge percentage of the Jewish Diaspora are only Jewish spiritually, but not nationally. Moreover, that identification is conditional on their marriage, residence and work schedule. It is a brand to be discarded or put aside upon a new one being introduced. That personal or emotional component required by any national identification is gone.
Curious anecdotes are being published in the Jewish press of some North American congregations intentionally eliminating Yiddish words from the communal vocabulary (such as “Good Shabbos” and “Good Yontef”) in order not to offend newcomers with cultural references foreign to them. There is no better admission by the leadership itself that the old Ashkenazi world is relegated to the history books and folktales.
Can the Ashkenazi “miracle” be recreated? Can we repair the breaking bond? Can we instill the national identity into the new generation of the Diaspora Jews? Short of a catastrophic event, the answer is a resounding “no.” It is not possible (at least not for the vast majority) as it is impossible to love strangers with the same force and passion with which one loves family. However, the spiritual connections must be strengthened. These new Jews may not completely or at all identify with the struggle of Jewish self-determination, but could be persuaded and educated to sympathize with it. Israel needs to understand this new reality and invest heavily in educational outreach to the Diaspora. The Diaspora itself should start investing in quality Jewish education if it has a desire to survive.
However, by itself these are oft-repeated empty words. The educational effort as it is practiced nowadays primarily based on Tikkun Olam and reading of Lubavitcher folk tales reminiscent of the early Soviet propaganda for village folk will bring no positive results. Only creative teaching of Jewish history and traditions, devoid of backward, Orthodox revanchist thinking can bring appreciation of the spirit that has driven the nation for centuries.
Clinging to the old outmoded approaches without admitting the reality can only fasten the disaster of total “separation.”
We should also be cognizant of the fact the center of Jewish civilization has moved from the Diaspora to the Land of Israel. In the postmodern world a nation can only preserve and develop its culture by the right of self-determination. Anyone who argues otherwise is more concerned with other (not necessary less lofty) goals than the future of Jewish people. The old Ashkenazi world is dead. It is time to embrace the reality and create the future as we have always done.
The author lives and works in Silicon Valley, California. He is a founding member of San Francisco Voice for Israel.
Time Is Running Out For Pax Americana’s Apologists
While the war in Syria has demonstrated the inferiority of US armament compared to that of Russia, the question of the end of American hegemony should be reviewed. According to Rostislav Ischenko, Washington must quickly make the right decisions. If Washington fails to overcome its own divisions immediately, he will lose control of events.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | MOSCOW (RUSSIA) | 11 NOVEMBER 2015
The paradox of the current global crisis is that for the last five years, all relatively responsible and independent nations have made tremendous efforts to save the United States from the financial, economic, military, and political disaster that looms ahead. And this is all despite Washington’s equally systematic moves to destabilize the world order, rightly known as the Pax Americana (“American peace”).
Since policy is not a zero-sum game, i.e., one participant’s loss does not necessarily entail a gain for another, this paradox has a logical explanation. A crisis erupts within any system when there is a discrepancy between its internal structure and the sum total of available resources (that is, those resources will eventually prove inadequate for the system to function normally and in the usual way).
There are at least three basic options for addressing this situation:
Through reform, in which the system’s internal structure evolves in such a way as to better correspond to the available resources.
Through the system’s collapse, in which the same result is achieved via revolution.
Through preservation, in which the inputs threatening the system are eliminated by force, and the relationships within the system are carefully preserved on an inequitable relationship basis (whether between classes, social strata, castes, or nations).
The preservation method was attempted by the Ming and Qing dynasties in China, as well as the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan. It was utilized successfully (in the 19th century) prior to the era of capitalist globalization. But neither of those Eastern civilizations (although fairly robust internally) survived their collision with the technologically more advanced (and hence more militarily and politically powerful) European civilization. Japan found its answer on the path of modernization (reform) back in the second half of the 19th century, China spent a century immersed in the quagmire of semi-colonial dependence and bloody civil wars, until the new leadership of Deng Xiaoping was able to articulate its own vision of modernizing reforms.
This point leads us to the conclusion that a system can be preserved only if it is safeguarded from any unwanted external influences, i.e., if it controls the globalized world.
The contradiction between the concept of escaping the crisis, which has been adopted the US elite, and the alternative concept —proposed by Russia and backed by China, then by the BRICS nations and now a large part of the world— lay in the fact that the politicians in Washington were working from the premise that they are able to fully control the globalized world and guide its development in the direction they wish. Therefore, faced with dwindling resources to sustain the mechanisms that perpetuate their global hegemony, they tried to resolve the problem by forcefully suppressing potential opponents in order to reallocate global resources in their favor.
If successful, the United States would be able to reenact the events of the late 1980s-early 1990s, when the collapse of the Soviet Union and the global socialist system under its control allowed the West to escape its crisis. At this new stage, it has become a question of no longer simply reallocating resources in favor of the West as a collective whole, but solely in favor of the United States. This move offered the system a respite that could be used to create a regime for preserving inequitable relationships, during which the American elite’s definitive control over the resources of power, raw materials, finance, and industrial resources safeguarded them from the danger of the system’s internal implosion, while the elimination of alternative power centers shielded the system from external breaches, rendering it eternal (at least for a historically foreseeable period of time).
The alternative approach postulated that the system’s total resources might be depleted before the United States can manage to generate the mechanisms to perpetuate its global hegemony. In turn, this will lead to strain (and overstrain) on the forces that ensure the imperial suppression of those nations existing on the global periphery, all in the interests of the Washington-based center, which will later bring about the inevitable collapse of the system.
Two hundred, or even one hundred years ago, politicians would have acted on the principle of “what is falling, that one should also push” and prepared to divvy up the legacy of yet another crumbling empire. However, the globalization of not only the world’s industry and trade (that was achieved by the end of the 19th century), but also global finance, caused the collapse of the American empire through a policy that was extremely dangerous and costly for the whole world. To put it bluntly, the United States could bury civilization under its own wreckage.
Consequently, the Russian-Chinese approach has made a point of offering Washington a compromise option that endorses the gradual, evolutionary erosion of American hegemony, plus the incremental reform of international financial, economic, military, and political relations on the basis of the existing system of international law.
America’s elite have been offered a “soft landing”  that would preserve much of their influence and assets, while gradually adapting the system to better correspond to the present facts of life (bringing it into line with the available reserve of resources), taking into account the interests of humanity, and not only of its “top echelon” as exemplified by the “300 families” who are actually dwindling to no more than thirty.
In the end, it is always better to negotiate than to build a new world upon the ashes of the old. Especially since there has been a global precedent for similar agreements.
Up until 2015, America’s elite (or at least the ones who determine US policy) had been assured that they possessed sufficient financial, economic, military, and political strength to cripple the rest of the world, while still preserving Washington’s hegemony by depriving everyone, including (at the final stage) even the American people of any real political sovereignty or economic rights. European bureaucrats were important allies for that elite – i.e., the cosmopolitan, comprador-bourgeoisie sector of the EU elite, whose welfare hinged on the further integration of transatlantic (i.e., under US control) EU entities (in which the premise of Atlantic solidarity has become geopolitical dogma) and NATO, although this is in conflict with the interests of the EU member states.
However, the crisis in Ukraine, which has dragged on much longer than originally planned, Russia’s impressive surge of military and political energy as it moved to resolve the Syrian crisis  (something for which the US did not have an appropriate response) and, most important, the progressive creation of alternative financial and economic entities that call into question the dollar’s position as the de facto world currency , have forced a sector of America’s elite that is amenable to compromise to rouse itself (over the last 15 years that elite has been effectively excluded from participation in any strategic decisions).
The latest statements by Kerry  and Obama  which seesaw from a willingness to consider a mutually acceptable compromise on all contentious issues (even Kiev was given instructions “to implement Minsk “) to a determination to continue the policy of confrontation – are evidence of the escalating battle being fought within the Washington establishment.
It is impossible to predict the outcome of this struggle — too many high-status politicians and influential families have tied their futures to an agenda that preserves imperial domination for that to be renounced painlessly. In reality, multibillion-dollar positions and entire political dynasties are at stake.
However, we can say with absolute certainty that there is a certain window of opportunity during which any decision can be made. And a window of opportunity is closing that would allow the US to make a soft landing with a few trade-offs. The Washington elite cannot escape the fact that they are up against far more serious problems than those of 10-15 years ago. Right now the big question is about how they are going to land, and although that landing will already be harder than it would have been and will come with costs, the situation is not yet a disaster.
But the US needs to think fast. Their resources are shrinking much faster than the authors of the plan for imperial preservation had expected. To their loss of control over the BRICS countries can be added the incipient, but still fairly rapid loss of control over EU policy as well as the onset of geopolitical maneuvering among the monarchies of the Middle East. The financial and economic entities created and set in motion by the BRICS nations are developing in accordance with their own logic, and Moscow and Beijing are not able to delay their development overlong while waiting for the US to suddenly discover a capacity to negotiate.
The point of no return will pass once and for all sometime in 2016, and America’s elite will no longer be able to choose between the provisions of compromise and collapse. The only thing that they will then be able to do is to slam the door loudly, trying to drag the rest of the world after them into the abyss.
Oriental Review (Russia)
 “KALIBRating the foe: strategic implications of the Russian cruise missiles’ launch”, by Vladimir Kozin, Oriental Review(Russia), Voltaire Network, 14 October 2015.
 “Speech by Barack Obama at 70th UN General Assembly”, by Barack Obama, Voltaire Network, 28 September 2015.
Vladimir Putin Traitor to the One World Government & The NWO.
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boC2…
Pictured is a young Vladimir Putin, who was part of the KGB security team. http://www.holographic-disclosure.com/
We see him introducing his son to the U.S President Ronald Reagan.
Also pictured is Michael Gorbachev.
Vladimir Putin came to power with the sponsorship of Boris Yeltsin: Yelstsin came to power with the sponsorship of the Russian Oligarchs.
For Millennium, the Cabal has been using the Heligian Dialectic.
The Hegelian Dialectic was the policies of George Hagel a German Philosopher.
All historical events emerge from a conflict between opposing forces.
The whole purpose of the dialectic is to control the masses like herding sheep.
Whenever people see a group or belief system as “evil” they instinctively move to the political opposite of what they identified as threatening.
Putin’s role was to follow Yeltzins footsteps as the Heligian Dialect was already played out in bringing the two nations, the U.S and Russia together.
But something terrible has gone wrong for the Cabal and their world take over.
Vladimir Putin Traitor to the New World Order.