The Iranian Advantage: So-Called Liberal Democracy-Not Fit for (Jewish) Purpose

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:01]I refer to the the concept and the reality, the theory and the reality of what is generally referred to in the west as democracy, as a as a governmental uh structure and system.

[00:00:28]We see at the present time that the most powerful nation on earth by almost any ob objective parameter in other words the United States seems to be at a very serious disadvantage visav the Iranians.

[00:00:52]I will add here either parenthetically or without the parenthesis. You can decide whether we need those parenthesis or not.

[00:01:02]One could one could question whether uh Trump and his advisers and Americans in general understand the Middle East and the Iranians and Islam.

[00:01:16]I think the answer is that they most definitely do not.

[00:01:20]And I think more and more people intelligent observers of reality are reaching this conclusion. They do not understand what Islam is all about.

[00:01:33]In other words, what is it all about? It is a program for world conquest. That is what Islam is. It's not a religion. It has a religious aspect to it, no question.

[00:01:48]But it is even more than it is a religion which serves to motivate the adherence of that system of that ideology and it also serves to unite them to motivate and to unite them but essentially it's a political program.

[00:02:11]You can uh look up a book by the name of I think it's called the sword of Islam which deals with this question not a new book by any means many many decades old but any anyone who knows anything about Islam I think will agree to that statement unless they're uninformed or misinformed or or deliberately uh obfuscating the facts. So first of all we have and so all right so we have this reality that the west in general and more specifically the United States do not understand or apparently essentially incapable understanding Islam and the Islamic world and even more specifically and more importantly the Iranians who are by far um more talented more intelligent and more resourceful than the rest of the Islamic world.

[00:03:19]And we have to ask ourselves why this is. The answer I think is rooted in the historical and philosophical um underpinnings of of the western world or the modern western world.

[00:03:36]More specifically that which in the west is referred to as a democratic liberal society is aimed at what? His aim is to facilitate the freedom of the individual, the pursuit of happiness, which is a term that we all with which we are all familiar. We know where it comes from.

[00:04:06]And the creation of wealth, which is not mentioned explicitly in uh shall we say the bill of rights or the declaration of independence, but that that is one of the things that underpins those documents. It's all focused on the individual to protect the individual from the state, which I'm not suggesting that is an unimportant or um unworthy aim. It is an important and worthy aim.

[00:04:37]But we have to understand if it that if is we go about this incorrectly then it comes with a very heavy price tag.

[00:04:47]Because if the aim of of your society is to en ensure the the welfare the uh the possibility of pursuing happiness and creating wealth and being free to do as you please.

[00:05:07]If that is the purpose of of the western the modern western system described as a democratic system and a liberal system then by definition the central government has to be rather weak and it also has to be essentially without any ideological direction.

[00:05:32]In other words, the modern western conception of democracy is based on the notion that there are different types of people in the world and there are different opinions.

[00:05:48]Some people subscribe to this or that ideology.

[00:05:54]Others subscribe to this or that religion. son perhaps subscribes to no religion, no ideology, shall we say a libertarian person for example, or an atheist libertarian. He he subscribes to nothing at all except for the fact that you need to get out of my way and I I would agree also to get out of your way and we shall do our own thing and that's it. And that's the purpose of of uh of any kind of societal contract and governmental system. But there is no per and there is no purpose beyond that.

[00:06:33]And when it comes to the big questions of life which involve ideology and religion and uh what is life about? Is there a meaning? Is there a purpose? Is there a direction? Is there right and wrong? and who decides what is right and who decides what is wrong, what is good, what is evil. Are there such things as good and evil? We all know that these questions have been discussed and have been asked by people, by philosophers, by theologians for millennia, certainly for the last few centuries.

[00:07:12]And the conclusion of Western humanities more or less has been over the last century and a half, perhaps two centuries, the conclusion has been that we don't have the answers to these questions, nor are we ever going to have these answers. They they are unachievable.

[00:07:36]This these things are unknowable.

[00:07:40]And therefore we have to agree to disagree on on the big questions in life.

[00:07:45]The big issues of uh what what is a good life?

[00:07:51]How does one lead one's life as an individual also as a society as an or as a nation? Is there such a thing as a nation? What is a nation? These are also questions.

[00:08:03]So if we cannot agree about these big questions, then we have to agree to put set them aside. And we have to agree and not just agree we have to demand that the government sets them aside. The government will have no input and no opinion on these matters. That of course is the basis of the concept of separation of church and state or shall we say religion and state because we don't know if this religion is correct or if religion at all is correct or maybe some other religion is is the correct way or another philosophy is the correct path. No one knows. No one has the answers to these questions. And therefore the state can't can't know either.

[00:08:47]And therefore they should stay out of such matters. Have nothing to do with them. And therefore the system the society and the government should have nothing to say about these matters.

[00:08:59]These should be purely personal matters.

[00:09:03]The only way to achieve such a system really is to ensure a relatively weak governmental system with relatively few powers of coercion and relatively uh very limited ability, shall we say, to to pursue a specific policy.

[00:09:33]or or ideal or aim such as waging a war against another nation or against some other society or organization to which there may be internal opposition.

[00:09:51]So if we we all know for example that without going into the question of whether uh American participation in the Vietnam war was a good idea or a bad idea that's a separate discussion but we all know why America lost that war why after so much loss of of uh blood and treasure America uh pul pulled out of Vietnam with its leg with its tail fail between its legs. We know why it was because of internal uh the internal rift within the American public. So many people had become diametrically opposed to that to that wall. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't make a difference right now. to the extent that the government could no longer pursue that policy and eventually in fact uh Congress basically shut down financing uh any any budget for for continuation of that military campaign and therefore there could no longer be a military campaign.

[00:10:58]It follows that by definition any nation that has a central and o overarching purpose for its existence.

[00:11:14]A nation for example that sees itself as in every generation as one more link in a chain, a great long chain going back thousands of years that has a direction and a purpose and a very sublime and divinely ordained purpose.

[00:11:35]Such a system the such a democratic liberal uh fractious system cannot cannot be the correct formula for self-governance because it there will always be people who will take advantage of that system and and the freedoms that they have under that system in order to derail the the government policy.

[00:12:05]or another put it put it another way the national purpose the national aim now it's true all countries more or less with the possible exception of the current uh situation in Israel and other places more countries understand more or less that when in extremists in a situation of war for example then you have to curtail some of these freedoms, freedom of expression and what have you. And that every country I think has has a law against aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. Unless of course you happen to be the the uh advocate general of the military in Israel, in which case you can actively pursue such a policy uh in cahoots with the with the Biden administration, other enemies of the Jewish people and and that's fine.

[00:13:04]But normally there are laws against such things. In fact, most countries have on their books a law uh regarding treason and aiding a betting enemy in time the enemy in time of war which carry a death sentence for obvious reasons. Even countries that normally do not employ such a sentence or such a punishment.

[00:13:30]Most countries understand that in in certain situations you have to change the rules. You have to play by a different set of rules. That is with regards to a country that is normally not a united nation which is a direct continuation of an historical civil civilizational tradition with a with overriding aims and purposes and values.

[00:13:59]And even they understand that in in a given situation where their where their existence is endangered where they are their lives or the the life of that society is threatened you have to change the rules. But if you're talking about a nation that does not exist or a state or a society that does not does not exist in order to guarantee the individual maximum freedom and the pursuit of happiness and the creation of wealth.

[00:14:31]that there are they believe this society, this nation, the civilization believes in values and ideas and aims that are above and beyond such things. Then you cannot base yourself on such a system on such a individual individualistic system. Then there has to be much more emphasis on the kalal on the on the nation on the uh the general collective good as the general collective good is described and understood and defined by that by that nation by that society. So back to the United States and Iran. Iran is run by a uh theological dictatorship with a very specific uh very very specific and dogmatic ideology.

[00:15:35]And as a result they have and they have on their side religious fervor which is a very powerful element which cannot be overlooked and cannot be uh over overrated.

[00:15:51]They have on their side the ability to absorb uh severe losses of life and property treasure. They do not excessively mourn each death and each each uh setback. They take the long view. They do not place the individual about above the nation but the quite the reverse. In their particular case, they are uh perfectly capable of slaughtering huge numbers of their own citizenry for for that ideological purpose as we have all witnessed.

[00:16:40]And they're very patient. In other words, the exact opposite of the United States in every possible respect and the entire western world. And it is very difficult to see how such a western outlook can be successful against a religious nationalistic system. It doesn't seem very likely.

[00:17:10]Certainly not in the in the world as we know it today. If one turn turns the clock back to the second world war and says well it was possible at that time for western nations such as as uh Great Britain at that time or the United States and many other countries to engage in a war with which involved tremendous sacrifice over a period of quite a few years.

[00:17:39]Uh the answer to that is true. Yes, that was possible then and even then it was just barely possible. There was plenty of opposition as we know in the in the in the United States for example is isolationist ideology not to get involved in European war or what was described as European war which is why Roosevelt who wanted to get involved did not and could not. he was actually legally limited and prevented from doing so by the neutrality act I think it was called. Um and it was only when America was attacked by the Japanese that that everything changed. And then of course the Germans helped by announcing uh war on on the United States as well. So really all obstacles were removed and Americans were riled up because they had been attacked and they were provoked and they were and there was still a lot of patriotic feeling amongst them.

[00:18:39]In those days it was it was not unheard of for young men to commit suicide if they were denied the possibility of serving in the armed forces for medical reasons.

[00:18:52]It was called an F4, I believe, exemption.

[00:18:56]And uh some young men committed suicide.

[00:18:59]They were they were couldn't bear the shame.

[00:19:02]Quite the opposite of what we saw, for example, during the Vietnam years and certainly what you would imagine you might find today.

[00:19:16]Other things have changed, of course, things like journalism, social media, etc. Once upon a time uh let's take Israel for example. In Israel once upon a time you had going back decades you had uh a few hundred maybe a couple of thousand journalists who set the agenda.

[00:19:38]Today in Israel, you have 10 million people with a keyboard and uh every person is a journalist and everyone has an opinion and everyone knows everything and everyone can criticize and everyone can analyze and everyone knows has the answers.

[00:19:54]That's just Israel and America not applied by a factor of uh 35 or something.

[00:20:07]So yes, there are advantages to social media and uh the internet and there also disadvantages.

[00:20:14]And if you do not know how to create a system of checks and balances and weigh out the the pros and the cons when it comes to how these things are used and what is permitted and to what extent you are willing to to limit the individual in what the individual may do in order to guarantee the welfare of the nation and its future.

[00:20:42]then uh essentially you are digging yourself into a hole from which you will not be able to emerge. So to those people who think that monarchy of any kind is uh is old hat and irrelevant as a system of government.

[00:21:09]Uh I would say you should think again It is a fact that in a in a system where all politicians have to take into account popularity and polls and upcoming elections and midterms and uh media campaigns and what have you.

[00:21:35]Not to mention um Chinese and Qatari money flowing into the coffers of various parties and individuals and politicians in many countries not just in the United States.

[00:21:51]In that kind of system uh those who are supposed to be leaders are in a very weak position. Whereas a system in which the leadership is firmly entrenched, not uh threatened and not nearly so limited in its powers and what it can do.

[00:22:18]Obviously such such a system the leaders of such a system those who run such a country are in a much more powerful position to stand up to their enemies their their their opponents their and their rivals.

[00:22:34]Some people will say yes but then uh will they not misuse their power?

[00:22:40]Very possibly they might.

[00:22:43]But then again in the current system also throughout the western world all all political leaders and well- entr and and the well and the very well- entrenched deep states in all countries abuse their powers and commit all manner of crimes against humanity and atrocities and injustices on a day-to-day basis. And any intelligent observer of reality knows this to be the case. So it is mainly an optical illusion to imagine that this doesn't happen under the current system the current systems in the west and it would only begin to happen if we were to change the system.

[00:23:24]It happens all the time. It always has happened. It always has been the case.

[00:23:30]It's just been uh less visible to most people for most of most of the time. Now it is becoming increasingly uh apparent with all kinds of developments like uh Epstein files and uh the various revelations and and myriad other things that um that um most people most intelligent people today are aware of. So if the if uh the United States wishes to continue on that course, that's their choice. But they have to understand that they will almost certainly not be able to overcome uh their enemies and their opponents and those who threaten world peace and and and freedom and liberty, by the way, everywhere, including in their own countries such people places such as China and Iran and what have you. And after all, Iran is the prime example of a a terrorist state that has has terrorized and brutalized the world for many many decades without anyone seemingly being able to stand up to them. Some people thought that uh Trump would be different and he would be able to stand up to them. Whether that's the case today, I think is most definitely may be questioned.

[00:25:04]We don't know exactly how things will work out because many things are possible. Many developments are still unknown.

[00:25:12]But right now the situation does not look particularly encouraging and this is the these things that I've mentioned are the essential reasons.

[00:25:23]That's as far as the United States goes.

[00:25:25]As a far as far as the Jewish people go, we cannot afford uh such a system.

[00:25:33]And not only because there are people like uh the Persians in the world and I mention again that we should refer to them most of the time as Persians because that's who they are and that's that's how we've always known them throughout history. The the Persians are only part of the problem. Even if there were no such there was no such country in the world and no such nation in the world and even if there was nothing such as Islam in the world and there were no Islam or Nazis throughout the world.

[00:26:07]It would still be the fact, the reality would still remain that the Jewish people are a a different kind of nation, a nation that was created by Hashem for a particular purpose.

[00:26:30]a nation that was created to disseminate knowledge of of Hashem and uh and all that is good and and proper in the world to uh spread knowledge of Hashem and and sing his praise.

[00:26:52]This is why Abraham and his descendants were chosen. And that purpose overrides any of the arguments and discussions of uh David Hume or John Lockach or uh Wau or or or uh or anyone else you care to mention. And therefore we we too that is to say the Jewish people today Israel finds itself unable to correctly and and successfully prosecute uh this war. And not just this war, but in general to pursue in a resolute and forthright and um incisive manner to pursue certain policies and take certain actions due to all kinds of uh fanciful ideas such as international law which is a figment of the imagination.

[00:27:59]That is why Henry Kiss Kissinger when he was once asked at Georgetown University to teach a course in international law he refused because he said I cannot teach about something that does not exist and he knew why he said that. If you are unwilling to be uh ruthless with regard visav people who themselves are ruthless, if you wish, if you imagine you can uh conduct yourself according to all kinds of fanciful uh effeminate liberal notions such as international law or uh so-called human rights, which of course anyone can define as they choose.

[00:28:45]When the other side does not do so, then you you are in for a very rude awakening. You are you you will not be successful.

[00:28:56]If both sides agree to certain limitations in the in the matter of warfare, then uh that might be that might be doable and it might uh also be desirable.

[00:29:13]But it certainly cannot work where where only one side plays by such rules and the other side ignores them. That that cannot be.

[00:29:24]And if you are unwilling to make tough calls, then you will not be successful against tough enemies.

[00:29:33]Similar to a situation where a person uh who un who is told who's informed by his doctors that if you do not allow us to amputate your leg you will die.

[00:29:46]That's just how it is. It's unfortunate.

[00:29:49]We regret that but that's the fact and we need your permission or suffer the consequences.

[00:29:56]If that person for whatever reason decides to have pity on his leg, then he's essentially signing his own his own death warrant.

[00:30:11]If you uh refuse to truly unabashedly without remorse, without regret, if you refuse to fight evil, then you too are signing your own death warrant in the long in the long term.

[00:30:32]And in order to implement s such policies and to to conduct such a a nation state, you need to have the right type and mode of of government. And the the so-called western democratic model is not is not that mode. It's not that system. And therefore, the Jewish people need a very different system.

[00:30:59]And any nation that is finds itself its own existence and and traditions and civilization to be of some value would be well advised to to consider these matters. This