Thursday, May 7, 2015

Europe's Newest Invasion needs Tough Love

May 9, 2015
Laina Farhat-Holzman

As Europeans wring their hands over the arrival of desperate boat people swarming from an Africa that seems to be in death throes, Italy is being shamed into rescuing them. How can they not? How can anybody in Europe not be shamed to relive the last time they created refugees when Yugoslavia was in meltdown? Or before that, when Jews had to flee, or when that savior of refugees, America, turned away ships, sending Jews back to the Nazis who then murdered them?

But as a historian, I want to look further back. Europe has been peopled from the start by hordes fleeing ecological disasters, mostly from Central Asia. The Romans were forever holding off “Barbarians” until finally they could not. These fierce tribes overran Rome and settled in Europe in the 4th century, their leaders marrying into Roman nobility, converting into Rome's then religion, Christianity, along with their subjects.

They were rough, warlike, and savage, but they really wanted nothing more than to be new Romans. They certainly had no desire to replace Rome with their own cultures. As dark as the “Dark Ages” were, they never completely extinguished Rome. The Middle Ages ushered in the resurrection of Roman law, Roman values, and even Roman technologies, and thanks to pressure from the Muslim world, a complete revival of the ancient Greek and Roman learning that we call the Renaissance.

Huns invaded and became Hungarians, becoming European except for their language. Slavic tribes invaded, and they too became Christian, European, and settled in, alas, bringing with them hatred of each other (the unhappy history of the former Yugoslavia). But they were European.

Vikings were a barbaric group that overran northern Europe and gave much grief to the British, French, and Russians in the 8th century. They wound up as a ruling class of all three---but all three had cultures and languages that swallowed them up. The English made them British; French wives tamed the Normans; and the Vikings became the Romanovs. Viking culture didn't stand a chance.

So what of today's hordes descending upon Europe? The first wave is already there: Educated Muslims and Hindus from Pakistan and India as colonialism ended, elite Persians fleeing the Islamic Revolution, elite Afghans fleeing the Taliban, and elite Saudis and Gulf Arabs buying expensive property and educating their children in Europe. This wave mostly integrated and their children are European. We see their names as writers, actors, and university dons.

The second wave is something else. They are fleeing anarchy and chaos, civil wars and ecological disasters. Some are worthy of refuge, but others are not. When a boatload of Muslim men who reached Italian shores had thrown overboard fellow Christians, they were jailed. Such people cannot become Europeans! Others are eager Jihadis. Europe must make some harsh choices if it is not to founder. Sympathy must not become suicide. Africa's death must not become Europe's.

     o     Europe cannot take all these people in. It must do serious triage. It must ban militant Muslims, who cannot be assimilated. But they must admit Christian (Syrian, Egyptian, and Lebanese) families who will otherwise be murdered in the Middle East. These people can become European.

     o     The rest must be sent to Libya to refugee camps like those that housed the Palestinians 60 years ago. To avoid carnage, they must be separated: Syrians, Ethiopians, Somalis, Chadians, with the hope that these people can be repatriated after their national emergencies are eventually resolved. In the interim, they need to be fed, cared for, and their children educated and prepared for gainful employment. The money must come from Europe---the EU, which should be glad to pay it rather than have to pay for such settlement in their own countries!

     o     Those now living in European countries must be given immersion courses in the language, values, and cultural behaviors of their new countries. There must not be any acceptance of multiculturalism if Europe is to survive.

This invasion, if not handled right, could have disastrous consequences for the survival of 2,000 years of European civilization.

675 words

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of God's Law or Man's Law.  You may contact her at or  

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

The Nation-State Idea is Not Cast in Stone

Laina Farhat-Holzman
May 2, 2015

I remember trying to explain to my small children what a “country” is. They understood neighborhood because we could walk around those streets. They even understood city because we could drive around such a recognizable entity. It was a little more difficult to understand state and really difficult to understand country. When they were a little older, they played with geography puzzles and learned to recognize the states that made up “the United States” and later “the world” and eventually saw this concept on a globe. These, of course, were educated children.

But what of children who live in villages elsewhere around the world, children who have never seen anything other than their village, have never known people other than relatives (family and extended family such as clan)? Can they really conceive or care about country?

A century ago, people in the Middle East, most of whom lived in villages where they knew only family and clan and regarded others as potential enemies or the “other,” were told (by their European “liberators” from Ottoman rule) that they were citizens of new “countries.” They were “Syrian,” “Jordanian,” “Iraqi,” “Saudi Arabian,” “Sudanese,” “Lebanese,” or 'Libyan.” Their only neighbors with age-old identities as countries were Iran, Morocco and Egypt. The rest were new at this game.

From the beginning of civilization when human beings built cities, they organized themselves into kingdoms and empires. When kingdoms and empires could not protect their cities from barbarian attacks, people lived in anarchy until some new strongman once more organized a new kingdom and then empire. During times of anarchy, when it was every man for himself, the only safety that people had was family and clan. The strongest members of those families protected the rest and became warlords, whom the rest obeyed without question. Survival demanded this.

Warlords fought with each other until eventually the strongest emerged and a new king emerged. Kings fought until a new emperor emerged. This is the story of mankind until the 18th century when something new appeared in the world: three revolutions at once:  scientific, religious, and political, giving us the modern world we now have, along with its nation states, rule of law, and a global system that most of the world's countries have signed onto since the Bretton Woods Conference, hosted by the single superpower, the United States,  in 1944, near the end of World War II. This amazing system has held until now.

But now it is coming apart. The state system that was imposed on Middle East in 1918 is in meltdown. The region is descending into anarchy and country borders that looked permanent are wobbling. People are losing faith in their nation-states and their governments which are not only not able to protect them, but have become attackers (such as Syria and Iraq). When dictators, who kept various sects from each other's throats, are themselves taken down, the sectarian hatreds rise to the surface and nobody can control them.  Indeed, dictators are not the worst evil in the world. Anarchy is.

Those of us blessed by nation-states of long duration have forgotten that they are not natural systems, but systems based on institutions, customs, and history. Those in the Middle East do not have that. We handed “nations” to people along with democracy, which we thought meant “free and fair elections,” and told them all would be well. Alas, what a mess we made. We need to stop tinkering and see what emerges when the smoke clears.

For a start: Iraq will fall back into the three parts from which it rose:  a Sunni part connected to Sunni parts of Syria and Jordan; a Shiite part that will be absorbed by Iran along with the Alawites of Syria. And the Kurds will have a country of their own, as they should have had a century ago.

Libya will fall into three pieces too: Tripoli, Benghazi, and the Berbers in the mountains, who do not even speak Arabic. More surprises will follow.

It will be a new map indeed.

673 words
Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of God's Law or Man's Law.  You may contact her at or  

Cher Colonel Landis;

by Andrew Targowski

How do you know what I think? I did not write that I do not believe in ET intelligence’s existence. Vice versa I wrote implicitly that I do believe it does. 
The decline of Western civilization as we know today does not mean that it will evaporate. I argued that it has been transforming into Global civilization. Is something wrong with that transformation? There are plenty of transformed civilizations. What about Classic civilization which had transformed into Western civilization, which applies Greek philosophy and art as well as Roman’s law and engineering today? 
Yes Cher Colonel, the well-being of working labor “hunts me.”  I would not like to live in labor-less economy. The role of the Internet in the transformation of civilization one can compare to the role of printed book invented 500+ years ago. The latter opened the époque of modernity, scientific knowledge, and advanced technology, which changed the civilization impressively. Yes, you are right. Many powerful practices of capital (like Robber Barons who however used capital for the sake of their own country) functioned before the Internet but its service today accelerated the role of stateless capital dramatically, and beyond our imagination. There are plenty of examples. Most important one is that we have democracy without feedback today (like Pacific Treaty Partnership, done by few for few).
No, Western civilization did not took “its élan during the Italian Renaissance.” It happened about 600 years sooner. But the developmental process of Western civilization was slow without printed books and the Internet.     
You asked me to expand the notion how Western civilization was swallowed by Global civilization? I told you already, please read my book on Global civilization in the 21st century (2014), and coming book on Western civilization in the 21st century (May 2015).
With respect
Andrew Targowski


by Ben Landis

Welcome to the discussion.  I apologize for not replying more promptly, but I was between continents.
I would like to put to rest the issue of whether there are or are not other intelligent beings in the universe.  Professor Targowski believes that there are none.  I believe that there is a probability (I can’t say that it is low, medium, or high.) that there are other intelligent beings in the universe.  Professor Targowski cannot prove that there are none.  I cannot prove that there are.  There are no grounds on which to discuss this issue.  Therefore, let’s agree to disagree and move on to matters more directly concerning earthly civilization.
Professor Targowski’s paragraph beginning, “The Colonel does not like my line…”  His line was that the progress of civilized man has reached its climax because of the Internet.  He now states that, “In my view the Internet” (1) leads to strong globalization.  Globalization , however one wishes to define it, was well on its way before the arrival of the Internet.  I refer the curious to Dr. A.J. Toynbee, who articulated this phenomenon in the 1940’s at which time it was already moving forward.  (2) “leads to the decline of Western civilization due to minimalization of the middle class (through outsourcing)…”  First, Western civilization existed well before the development of a middle class.  Other civilizations have prospered with no middle classes throughout their existence.  Civilization per se does not depend upon the middle class.  The Internet did not create the economic activity of “outsourcing”.  Outsourcing as a means of maintaining the viability of a commercial enterprise began well before the Internet.  (3) “replacing Christian values by business values…”  Again, Professor Targowski places the blame on the Internet.  If Christian values have been replaced by business values it occurred a long time before the Internet.  Did the so-called “robber barons” who made fortunes during the industrialization of the United States economy in the last half of the XIXth Century operate their businesses on Christian, rather than business, values more than their modern equivalents?  The ghosts of the American labor movement may come to haunt you, professor.  (4) “growth of global stateless corporations…”  The Internet is not to blame.  This type of business enterprise well predates the Internet.  (5)  “unsustainable growth of production by cheap labor and mass volume of resources…”  The professor perceives an unsustainability of mass production that I cannot see.  In fact, production of all kinds will inevitably increase in order to meet the demands of the developing and emerging peoples.  I do not understand the reference to “mass volume of resources” in conjunction with “unsustainability of mass production”.  Again, how is the Internet to be blamed for this?  (6) “glory of super consumerism…”  Again the fault of the Internet.  If one looks at just the United States, the degree of consumerism as reflected in the part of the GDP created by consumerism (consumption), one finds that the percentage has not materially changed since the 1960’s, at least.  (7) “population growth…”  Caused by the Internet?  I ask for enlightenment, please.  (8) “…ignition of the ecological bomb, depletion of strategic reserves, vulgarization of culture…”  Again, the fault of the Internet per Professor Targowski.
Professor Targowski does concede that his claim that the use of mobile phones contracts the brain will not be able to be proved or disproved for “a few centuries”.  In my previous posting I understood Professor’ Targowski’s statement that “[the downplaying of social groups] is expressed by the detachment of politicians from the service of voters right after election…” meant 100% of politicians   I was wrong.  I therefore do not assume that the Professor means that 100% of mobile phone users will suffer a contraction of their cerebral power.
I am sure that the Professor knows that civilization (singular or plural) was the creation of a minority, a small minority, of the subsequently civilized population.  For example, if we assume that Western Civilization took its élan during the Italian Renaissance, only a very small percentage of the population was literate.  The same was even truer for earlier civilizations.  An élite (called a Creative Minority by Dr. Toynbee) created, developed , and sustained civilization.  The great mass of the population (Internal Proletariat per Dr. Toynbee) followed the lead of the Creative Minority.  That has been the case in all known civilizations.  The mass of the “civilized” population is in, but not of, the civilization.  Therefore, the possible contraction of the cerebral power of the mass of the population is of little consequence to the continuance of civilization, since there will always be an élite whose use of mobile phones is not sufficient to reduce its brain power.  There are, nonetheless, two problems staring us in the face.  (1) In all previous civilizations the Creative Minority has transformed itself into a Dominant Minority, thus creating a schism with the mass of the population and, consequently, dooming the civilization.  Is Western Civilization tending toward that point?  (2) One of the determining characteristics of contemporary Western Civilization is Democracy.  The question is, How do we maintain this Democracy characteristic, not in the face of a possible future deterioration of Western Civilization’s population’s mental capacities, but in the face of the separation of the mass of the population from its leaders and of a belief in the democratic form of government?  Are Western Civilizations going to become Plutocracies governed by a Dominant Minority?
Professor Targowski, in opposition to all the facts, maintains that the world is not being Westernized, but that Western Civilization is being “swallowed by Global Civilization”.  This blog is already too long to discuss this issue.  I ask Professor Targowski to take the time to write an article for the ISCSC Newsletter or for the CCR or another blog post to describe how this Global Civilization he proclaims is other than the westernization of the world’s other civilizations and to describe the salient features of this Global Civilization, particularly those that do not emanate from Western Civilization..
I encourage readers of these blog posts to join in the discussion.  Let’s talk!                            

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Civilization seen by Col. Landis

Andrew Targowski

Col. Landis criticizes my 750 word long entry to the 2014 ISCSC Newsletter for the lack of broader support of my statements.  It is not a scientific paper, just a very short sketch on a very broad topic. More “substance” on that topic is in my book, The Limits of Civilizations (144 pages).  This sketch is my opinion, since the subject matter is based on predicting the future of civilization which is always based on many “ifs.”
The Polemists insist that other intelligence did not visit our Planet for the same reason our SETI system cannot cross the light speed barrier. Einstein said it is impossible, but as Jennifer Ouellette explains some scientists are still trying to break the cosmic speed limit – even if it means bending the laws of physics. Same Einstein asked what is more in God’s basket besides the four laws of physics?  It means that he was wondering whether, perhaps this barrier is only for us leaving on Earth?
Col. Landis asks me why I did not explain what does it mean “survival of the fittest.” I did not do it since our Members know it. Perhaps millions of people know that it is the essence of Darwin’s theory which is the base in all scientific disciplines and common sense disputes.
The Colonel does not like my line “In the 21st century, the progress of the civilized man reached its climax, as illustrated by the …large scale use of the internet.”  He claims that this is totally unsubstantiated. In my view the Internet leads to the strong globalization, decline of Western civilization due to minimalization of the middle class (through outsourcing), replacing Christian values by business values, growth of global stateless corporations, unsustainable growth of production by cheap labor and mass volume of resources, glory of super-consumerism, and population growth, ignition of the ecological bomb, depletion of strategic resources, vulgarization of culture, and so forth.
“Why the use of mobile phones leads to the contraction of the human brain?” Smiles the Colonel.  Because, users of those phones use not full words but short symbols and acronyms, leaving memorization to electronics. This is the reversal of the development of the human brain, which took place about 50,000 years ago when we began to use a developed language constantly growing in the number of words, which led to the development of our vast vocabulary and our brain as well in terms of capacity as in complexity of meanings and their syntax and  semantic relations. The declining use of F2F communication and short acronyms will eventually shrink the human brain. Wait a few centuries for the first statistics. I do not need to produce statistics in 750 word long sketch for a Newsletter. You may find more in my recent book, Virtual Civilization in the 21st Century.
Dear Col. Landis, you are right, Western civilization used to westernize the world. However, in the 21st century, such civilizations as Islamic, Buddhist, Chinese, even Eastern (Russia) want to modernize by not being westernized. Eventually Western civilization will be swallowed by Global civilization. The Colonel is right that Western civilization created Global civilization but now the former is eaten by the later. According to the rule that “a revolution eats its children.” Please read my book Global Civilization in the 21st Century.
Dear Col. Landis, I did not say that 100% of politicians are corrupted. I am not so stupid.
Thank you Col. Landis for providing me so many “fighting arguments” that I could use my “cannons.”
With respect
Andrew Targowski

Comment on Andrew Targowski's Winter 2014 ISCSC newsletter article "State of Civilization Where Are We Heading"

Benjamin L. Landis

I am very much disappointed in the article by Doctor Targowski in the Winter 2014 edition of the ISCSC.  Entitled “State of Civilization Where Are We Heading” it is ideological, not pedagogic; it is opinionated, not objective; it is superficial, not substantive.  Essentially it is the Gospel as declared by Doctor Targowski without any basis in history or fact.  And it is almost totally erroneous.
He begins by declaring “…Apparently man is unique universe-wise, too, or how do we explain that for 4.5 bln years no other “human” visited the earth or no signals betraying one have been recorded by the earth-based SETI system.”  This is nonsense.  The reason no other being has visited Earth is probably the same reason no member of our planet has visited any part of the universe outside our solar system.  We have not discovered how to exceed the speed of light.  We should not blame other societies for the same failing.  Years ago I remember Dr. Carl Sagan saying that there was a strong probability that other living species existed beyond our solar system.  Doctor Targowski’s reliance on the negative results achieved by SETI needs to be clarified.  Does SETI have the necessary equipment to probe the vastness of the universe and to detect living beings?  Has SETI attempted to do so?  If yes, has it covered the entire universe?
Next, he declares that the human species has evolved and endured thanks to the survival of the fittest.  Then, he immediately thereafter writes, maybe it was “…thanks to the skill of collective social life…”  And then again he continues by writing that “…another factor…was the advantageous shape of the hand…”  Or…  In fact, all these concepts are one.  They simply represent different phases or aspects of the evolution of the human species.  Furthermore, the use of the term “survival of the fittest” should have been clarified.  It does not mean in evolutionary theory the survival of the biggest and strongest and healthiest.  It means the survival of those organisms or animals which can best adapt to environmental changes.
The next paragraph that begins “…Further development of man was about the development of civilization…” is filled with inaccuracies.  Unfortunately, I cannot cite them in detail because of the limitation (500 to 1,000 words) on a blog post.
He begins the next paragraph by writing, “In the 21st century, the progress of the civilized man reached its climax, as illustrated by the …large scale use of the internet.”  This is totally unsubstantiated.  How can he know that civilized man has reached a climax?  Believing this, Doctor Targowski demonstrates that he does not understand what a civilization is.  He then writes, “The 21st century mass use of mobile phones…will soon lead to the contraction of the human brain…”  This is totally unsubstantiated.  Doctor Targowski needs to produce statistical or psychological proof that the use of mobile devices causes a deterioration of the brain.
In the next paragraph he states that the [internet] “...leads to the reduction of the world’s diversity as it promotes the expansion of the unified Global civilization…”  The use of the term “Global” is misleading.  Doctor Targowski needs to read Toynbee, who discerned the Westernization of the dying civilizations still in existence in the early 1950’s.  This “globalization” is a one way street.  Western Civilization is westernizing the rest of the world.  None of the other civilizations is impregnating Western Civilization.  But, in contradiction to what he shows on the chart accompanying the article, the world will not be completely westernized by the end of this century.  The transformation of a civilization, even a moribund one, takes centuries.
He then writes, “…the Global civilization…loosens [the] capability [of “social groups living in the same territory”] of self-defense and survival.”  This is a statement totally unsubstantiated by experience.  Doctor Targowski needs to explain how this could or would happen.
He writes, “This is expressed in the detachment of politicians from their service of the voters right after election and offering their services to various groups, scattered across the world, and represented by lobbyists.”  An unfortunate generalization.  He is saying that 100% of the politicians in all the countries of the world are corrupt.  He should know that this is not true.  There are bad politicians and there are good politicians.  There are honest politicians and there are dishonest politicians.  Someone once said or wrote (I think it was an Englishman) that a people has the politicians it deserves.  So, Doctor Targowski would do better to take after the people of the world and not their politicians.  Furthermore, “politicians” are a creation of Western Civilization’s democracies.  There existed civilizations before politicians and democracy.
Finally, he writes, “This is corroborated by the 21st century structural crisis of the states forming the Western Civilization, which in fact has been replaced by the Global Civilization.”  Again, wrong!  What does he mean by “structural crisis”?  Is he implying that 100% of the states of Western Civilization are undergoing this crisis?  He needs to substantiate that proclamation.  And lastly, he repeats his confusion:  Western Civilization has not been replaced by a Global Civilization.  On the contrary.  Western Civilization is creating a Global Civilization, but it will not come into full existence for several centuries.
My final word:  If you have time to waste, read the article, but don’t believe a word of it.  (I wish I could have been more detailed in my analysis of Doctor Targowski’s article, but I had word limitations imposed.)

Comments on Dr. Farhat-Holzman’s ‘Clash of Civilizations offers Glimmers of Hope

Benjamin L. Landis

Dr. Farhat-Holzman’s blog post “ ‘Clash of Traditions’ offer glimmers of hope” [Note for the web site editor: The title should read ‘Clash of Traditions offers glimmers of hope’.] arouses a couple of comments.  First, more than forty years before Huntington, Dr. Arnold J. Toynbee in Volume VIII of his “A Study of History” treated the issue of clashes between civilizations.  Such clashes have existed almost since the beginnings of civilization.  They have traditionally featured warfare and conquest and the eventual assimilation of the conquered by the culture of the conquerors.  There have been, however, exceptions to this general rule.  The most prominent, to my less-than-complete knowledge, being the Islamic Arabs out of the Saudi Arabian desert assimilating the civilization of the more ancient Syriac Civilization and then transforming it into a unique Islamic Civilization.  Unless one wishes to argue that the Arabian Islamic conquerors were already a part of the Syriac Civilization.  But that’s a different blog post.
Huntington’s prediction “that we were headed for stormy times when the largest civilizations would not meet peacefully” (the words are from Dr Farhat-Holzman’s blog post) is fairly meaningless.  No civilizations, large or small, have ever met peacefully since the first civilizations.  Almost 20 years after Huntington’s book, what is the situation?
When the Second World War ended there were only five civilizations in existence: Western, Orthodox-Russian, Islamic, Far Eastern, and Hindu (I use Toynbee’s terminology.).  All these except the Western had suffered in the preceding centuries for two reasons: Colonialism and Westernization.  Starting in the fifteenth century the national states of Western Europe began to colonize the world.  By the end of the First World War North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand were a part of Western Civilization.  All of the Islamic world, except Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan, all of Africa, except Liberia and Ethiopia, and most of Asia, except for Japan and China, were either colonies of Western nation states or dominated by them.  Western Civilization was easily recognizable as the most dynamic of the existing civilizations.  So, it can be said that the other globalizing force, i.e., westernization, began at the same time as colonization.  However, in most of the colonized countries the colonizers had little interest in westernizing the colonized populations.  It is certainly true, nevertheless, that some aspects of Western culture were passed on and adopted, but essentially the civilizations retained their particularities and personalities.
Today, colonialism is dead.  The major force acting on the relations between civilizations is now westernization.  Everywhere in the world one can see the various aspects of Western civilization penetrating the other civilizations.  One could argue that the Orthodox-Russian Civilization has become almost totally westernized.  On the other hand, the Islamic Civilization is fighting hard to resist westernization.  The United States government’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, its failure to achieve a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and its continuing military intervention in Islamic internal struggles have been major impediments to the adoption of Western culture in Islamic countries.  The Far Eastern and Hindu Civilizations are demonstrating a much more receptive attitude to their eventual westernization.
There will be eventually a global civilization, probably based on Western culture.  I agree with Dr. Targowski on this point.  However, neither he nor I nor Dr, Farhat-Holzman will live to see it.  And it will certainly not be achieved by the end of this century, as Dr. Targowski believes.  The signs of this westernization are everywhere: in the Arab Spring, in Saudi women driving cars, in South Koreans having plastic surgery to westernize their faces, in the Chinese government’s permitting capitalistic enterprises, in the expansion of English as the world’s second language, etc.  The list is long.  I am willing to give further examples if a reader requests, but I imagine that any reader can come up with his/her own.  But one must remember that complete acceptance of a foreign culture takes a very long time, centuries.
Dr. Farhat-Holzman writes that “…most scholars … upon the end of the Cold War, were convinced that the world had globalized; that the United States and its values had dominated all others, and that there was nothing really left to fight about. War was no longer really conceivable. We had every institution needed to regulate a peaceful, rational world order.”  I would like to know what scholars Dr. Farhat-Holzman is citing here.  They must have been living high in an aerie or deep in a cave.  I can’t cite any scholar who believed that.  The world had not then been globalized; it is not globalized today.  What does globalization mean?  Is the world globalized because I can fly from my home in the United States to Tokyo in less than a day?  Is the world globalized because I can have a telephone conversation with someone in Beijing?  Is the world globalized because most of the clothes I wear are made in China? I side with Dr. Targowski in his article in the 2014 Winter edition of the ISCSC Newsletter “The State of Civilization—Where are we heading?”.   Globalization is more than commerce; it is deeply cultural.
Furthermore, the United Nations had already demonstrated by its performance prior to the end of the Cold War that it was not capable of regulating “a peaceful, rational world order.”  What other organization or organizations is Dr. Farhat-Holzman thinking of?
I would appreciate any comments, pro or con or amplificatory, any reader would like to make on the points I make above.