August 21, 2014


My parents, who have lived in Jerusalem for 22 years, recently met their new neighbors.  They are French Jews from Paris who describe themselves as refugees. ” We came to the conclusion that there was simply no future for us in France.  Jews are targets there and the government cannot and does not want to protect them. France is lost.”
Their message resonated with me as I returned to Israel from a  speaking tour of Southern Africa.  In South Africa I watched as President Jacob Zuma and many of his secondary ministers, fulminated about the international crimes of the Israeli government in Gaza.  In Namibia, a country with only a handful of Jews and with no previous strong record of antisemitic animus, television news programs consistently portrayed a one dimensional view of the conflict, failing entirely to present the context of Operation Protective Edge and castigating the worldwide Jewish support for Israel as the primary culprit.
In Ethiopia, where I stayed for two days, almost everyone I met seemed to think that Israeli war crimes deserved international sanction and that Jews should be made to pay reparations for the destruction of Gaza hospitals and educational facilities.
 In Australia, a country with a very strong record of governmental support for Israel, a cartoon in one of the country’s leading dailies depicted a hook-nosed Jew reclining in a chair marked with a Star of David casually using a remote to destroy Gazan property.
And In Germany, demonstrators in Berlin – and not just Muslims – could be heard yelling “Death to Israel”, and “Zionists are fascists, killing children and civilians!” and a Berlin imam was recorded using his sermons to ask Allah to kill the Jews “to the very last one,”.
In response, the President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dieter Graumnn said; “We are currently experiencing in this country an explosion of evil and violent hatred of Jews. We would never in our lives have thought it possible any more that anti-Semitic views of the nastiest and most primitive kind can be chanted on German streets. Jews are once again openly threatened in Germany and sometimes attacked.”
Throughout the world, Jews have felt the tremors of an upheaval that should be deeply unsettling if not shocking. For it is not simply Israeli policies which have been criticized.  Colleagues in Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, England, Italy and as far away as Iceland have reported unparalleled outbursts of antisemitic activity and sentiment in their countries.
The steep rise in antisemitism which has emerged in the streets of  the world’s capitals is a salutary reminder to us all of one of the abiding features of Western history: Antisemitism, despite the denials of governments and citizens – and our own self delusions, is a permanent feature of life in dozens of countries outside Israel that will not die. We fool ourselves into believing that it manifests only as a territorial claim or is some kind of residual spasm of a long cured illness.
For surely it is not. The disease is congenital and much like the Ebola Virus now sweeping  Western Africa  –  deadly and incurable. Despite the horrifying lessons of the Holocaust, the supposed safeguards of a powerful international human rights movement and the sanctimonious pronouncements of world leaders, the contagion of antisemitism has not been eradicated but persists in the minds of millions of people who remain convinced of a malevolent Jewish stereotype which threatens the peace of the world. 
If this is so, then where is it safe for Jews to live?
That is exactly the question that an Austrian-Jewish journalist reporting in 1895 on the polarizing anti-semitic trial of Alfred Dreyfus in Paris, came to ponder: “if France – bastion of emancipation, progress and universal socialism – [can] get caught up in a maelstrom of antisemitism and let the Parisian crowd chant ‘Kill the Jews!’ Where can they be safe once again – if not in their own country?
Theodor Herzl’s words ring in my ears as I sit in Jerusalem and write these words.  Despite whatever you read in the world’s newspapers or hear from sage voices in the commentariat, the Jews of Israel feel safe – a fact which has little to do with the use of advanced technology or the deployment of one of the world’s most sophisticated armies.  United as at no time since perhaps the Six Day War, the Israelis as individuals and as a country seem to have finally grasped the fact that no territorial surrender, no peace agreements and no humanitarian gestures will appease their enemies.  That is because they accept, better than we in the Diaspora ever could, that the war against them extends beyond their borders and beyond the Middle East.  It is an age old  war of extinction, driven by the the most pernicious form of human hatred and if they have to make a stand against it then they will do it in their own land, with their own resources and on their own terms. The determination to defeat the enemy and to make the State of Israel a true place of refuge for the Jewish people has contributed to a remarkable resilience and an unshakable faith in the future which has allowed life in most of the country to continue, to the greatest extent possible, as normal.
I had to wonder about this as I perused my emails mid-flight on my way back from Ethiopia.  
Familiar with my somewhat frenetic travel schedule, an Australian friend asked:  “Are you home yet – wherever that might be?”
As I touched down at Ben Gurion Airport , saw the Israeli flag fluttering  in the moonlight, watched the cars pass by with blue and white ribbons attached to their antenna and witnessed the bumper stickers and posters declaring an unwavering commitment to victory, without  hesitation I wrote back:
” Yes, I am home – and I am safe.”
Avi Davis is the President of the American Freedom Alliance in Los Angeles and owns a home in the Old City of Tzfat in Israel. This piece appeared in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal and subsequently in the Australian Jewish News and the Jerusalem Post

Global Governance Utopianism and the Threats to Freedom

June 8, 2012


It does not take much to trace the lineage of the global governance movement.  Beginning  with the very first work on international law, written by Herman Grotius in 1623, down through the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant and Karl Krause and to the mid- 20th century novels of H.G. Wells, a line can be drawn threading together advocacy of intellectuals and political leaders for the establishment of some kind of global authority to be placed in charge of governing mankind’s work and activities.

The growth of this movement springs largely from utopian notions of the perfectibility of the world – that mankind’s tendency towards violent conflict, the inequitable distribution of wealth and the degradation of the environment can only be cured by the pronouncements of a wise council of men who dictate how conflict is to be resolved and the methods by which the world’s assets are to be distributed.


The commonalities which bind together advocacy for global governance today are fairly clear:

  • A belief that the nation state is either obsolete or in imminent decline
  • A rejection of capitalist economies and the role of free enterprise
  • A profound distrust of common forms of human organization, including democratic self-government and the nuclear family
  • An acceptance of the idea that an international consensus exists that all nations and all peoples have common goals
  • An abiding contempt for all forms of organized religion
  • An unwillingness to brook opposition of any kind

Such a philosophy has brought the global governance movement into direct confrontation with constitutional democracy in this century.  For constitutional democracy is founded not upon collectivist ideals but upon the virtues of individualism and the ability of human beings to resolve their conflicts in a just and equitable manner. Constitutional democracy is neither statist nor authoritarian. It trusts in human nature, rather than rejects it and has its roots planted deeply in the belief that humanity has an elevated purpose tied to the existence of a force beyond itself.

Global governance advocates paint a pretty picture of a world where human happiness would be assured once differences between peoples – whether they be of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or ability – were eradicated.

But lets be frank.  Differences between human beings cannot be eradicated.  The collectivist  experiments of the 20th Century in the U.S.S.R and its satellite communist regimes failed miserably to create  happiness for anyone  except an elite few and resulted only in  the impoverishment of  once robust economies, the imposition of heavy regulation, the imprisonment of  “enemies of the State” and the mass murder of millions.

Given its provenance in the twisted notions of collectivism and the state control, it is little wonder to see Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the failed Soviet empire, become one of the leading lights of the modern global governance movement. His campaigns for a global environmental regime, based on the UN’s Earth Charter, disguise a more sinister agenda – the implicit overthrow of capitalist economies and the stripping of national sovereign rights.   No one should be surprised then when Gorbachev and his other environmental advocates call for the Earth Charter to replace the Ten Commandments as mankind’s governing moral code. Indeed, it is not beyond exaggeration to refer to Gorbachev’s environmentalism as a new form of religion in itself– but one naturally removed from any notion of the existence of a Supreme Being. 

Gorbachev’s activism is only the tip of the iceberg of a movement which has won supporters in the highest echelons of West’s intelligentsia, media and political classes.  The European Union, for example, today stands as a model of the transference of this ideal into practice. Today power in Europe has become largely centralized in Brussels, representative democracy is treated loosely as an after thought and the growth of a huge bureaucracy regulates everything from the price of tomatoes to day care for toddlers.

The United Nations has its own vital role to play in this growing movement and ideology. Its surreptitious program, Agenda 21, addressed extensively in AFA’s 2011  Big Footprint conference, calls for a range of changes to be made to human conduct and behavior by imposing strict regulation on everything from urban development to the exploitation of energy resources.  It has been adopted, often without a whisper of objection, by thousands of city councils, public schools and public utilities throughout the West.  Proudly promoting a ‘back to nature’ philosophy, it is as direct a threat to the independence of sovereign nation states as any other program or ideology..  .

Non-governmental organizations play significantly supportive roles in many of these developments.   So called humanitarian organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders, hide their profoundly anti-Western, anti-capitalist bias behind advocacy for the imposition of international humanitarian law on Western countries.  Little known to most citizens in the West, is the way international humanitarian law conflicts directly with certain constitutional protections and  how its adoption could significantly trammel the rights and constitutional protections enjoyed by millions around the world.

As this conference takes place, the battle against global governance is being fought most visibly in the struggle over who will regulate the Internet and who will control our seas.  The United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union( ITU) has made a claim that, given the international scope of the Internet, it should be the one  and only agency to monitor and control its access around the world.  But little known is that the drive to harness the Internet is fueled largely by authoritarian governments such as  China and Russia whose interests lie in curtailing information provided on the Internet and not increasing access to it.

In the current struggle over the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the U.S. is faced with intense international pressure to conform to certain international maritime standards which establish guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.   This pure example of global governance in action, would severely restrict most modern wealthy nation states from the development of resources close to their own shores in deference to Third World countries who are given a greater share of those resources and opportunities to harvest them.

Lawfare, the manipulation of domestic legal systems to secure political ends, is also becoming deployed as a key weapon in the global governance arsenal.   The movement to establish a universal jurisdiction by which foreign nationals can be sued and brought to court in a country where they have had no prior dealings, provides a view of the kind of world that could exist under a globally governed regime. It would be a world where  independent jurists and outraged citizens in one country would be free to interfere directly in the decision making of sovereign governments in another.  This was brought to light most powerfully when following the Lebanon War of 2006, Israel’s prime minister, military chief of staff and other political and military leaders were issued with summonses in Brussels.  There can be no greater example of the reach of global governance advocacy than this attempt to expand and impose a universal jurisdiction which eclipses the sovereign nation state’s right to self-defense.

 While mentioning Israel it should be noted that underlying global governance advocacy is the determination to bring strong independent nations to heel.  This is no more so than in the way both the United Stares and Israel are targeted for both human rights violations and territorial aggression.  While massacres take place in the Sudan, starvation overcomes the people of North Korea and death and destruction reign in the Congo, it remains these two democratic nations who are recipients of regular excoriation in the United Nations and in the reports of human rights organizations.  This so because  the  exercise of the right of  self-defense of these strong democratic nations stands as a significant obstacle to the imposition of a universal jurisdiction to monitor armed conflict. The demonization and diminishment of both has therefore become a key global governance strategy, often aided and abetted by academics and media personalities within those very same countries.

All of these threats combine to present the most significant challenges to western freedoms that we may have ever known.  The threat is so  because it is largely invisible and carries the imprimatur of an international consensus.  But we should not be gulled.  In truth there is no such thing as an “international consensus.” There are only nations who agree to cooperate, not for some greater global universal good but in their own self interest.   We should be warned that those proposing that nation states surrender their own sovereign rights in the interests of universally agreed upon values and standards are not advancing your interest nor mine, but their own. 

The battle to defend national sovereignty is a long and difficult one but the case can be made succinctly and is done so in brilliant works such as Jeremy Rabkin’s The Case for Sovereignty.  This conference is an attempt to join political leaders, major thinkers and media personalities from around the world in an attempt to thwart the rise of this movement and expose its true orientation and motives. And it stands firm in the belief that democratic representative government and the sovereign rights that accrue to it remains the best system for the management of human affairs ever devised by the human mind. 

Avi Davis is the President of the American Freedom Alliance and the coordinator of the Global Governance vs National Sovereignty Conference.








Greek Drama Has Lessons for the Western World

November 7, 2011

As Greek prime minister George Papendreou submitted his resignation to the president on Saturday, there were no cheers of exaltation rising from the streets of Greek cities.  Instead, there was only a palpable sense of dread, as the future looked  more grimly uncertain than ever. 

Papendreou, the scion of the country’s most prominent political family- whose father and grandfather had both served as prime ministers – became the latest victim of  the sentient notion that  Europe would be a harbinger of a new era for mankind – a place where conciliation would replace confrontation and where amity would replace division.

But the Greek political class on Saturday demonstrated that the new Europe would be a far more divided place than any European leader could have imagined sixteen years ago following the signing of the Maatricht Treaty.  One can only gasp in wonder as a country roiled by a one trillion euro debt and confronted with the snarling contempt of other major European countries, could not bring itself to recognize that without a unified voice which accepts the austerity plan imposed upon it by the European Union, the entire country could be engulfed in an economic cataclysm that would make German stagflation of the 1920s look like a Saturday afternoon game of Monopoly.

For what had collapsed by Saturday night in Athens was not only the prime minister’s center-right coalition but  the very idea of a unified Greek nation, one that believed that as a people and a country it possessed a common destiny and common purpose.  The failure of the two major parties to forge an alliance to stave off the worst financial crisis in the country’s history, is a telling sign of what will become of other European countries as they pass through exactly the same crisis in the coming twelve months. It is very difficult to fathom how a democratic country, faced with such unflinching and demanding partners – who control the very monetary lifelines necessary to keep their economy alive, could be so conflicted on what is the only possible course for it to take. 

But this is the face of the New Europe.  Given to years of lassitude, the Greeks, and most Europeans have no stomach for austerity.  Profligacy, social welfare, neoptism, corruption and a vibrant, fairly open black market, has produced a country where people don’t work much, retire young and take long vacations. 

The Greek model actually describes the bulk of Europe, where the work ethic has given way to the pleasure ethic and the lambent idea that government can always be counted on to bail out failed enterprises.  But what happens when the government has no money to bail out anybody and the source that it must rely on – namely foreign investment, remains skittish and uncertain about the country’s future?  What happens when no one – not the European Union, not the United States and not China – is prepared to say we believe in your future and we will continue to fund your debt?

What then happens is a complete collapse of confidence and a fatalism that grips everyone from the prime minister to the local fruit vendor.   That is what was on display in the streets of Athens on Saturday night.  No matter what happens with the dissolution of the government or new elections in the not-too-distant future, the crushing weight  of debt will be the overriding, ever present concern of whomever takes over the running of the Greek Republic.  

The Greeks have good reason to wonder who will ultimately control their fate.  Angeliki Martaki, a retiree quoted in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, summed up what many ordinary Europeans must be feeling about their future:  “All the Euro has bought us has been pain.  At least with the drachma, we were what we were: Greek.  Now, I don’t know what we are and who is in charge of our national destiny.”

I heard the same sentiments expressed to me in villages in England and coffee shops in Madrid.   A collapse of national purpose; the absence of great leaders who can rouse the population to work and save; the lack of a pervasive national sentiment boldly declaring” we are all in this together.”  Instead, as countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal progressively unravel, the citizens of these once great, independent countries will find themselves having to fend for themselves, with no one but the Gods to hear their cries of pain.

That idea – that soon there actually may be no one willling or able to come to the rescue – is a lesson that every citizen in the West should take to heart.

AFA’s Summer Conference- Big Footprint: Is Green the New Tyranny?

May 23, 2011

Sunday, June 12 – Monday, June 13, 2011

International Conference:

Big Footprint: Is Green the New Tyranny?


Lord Monckton, Chris Horner, Steve Milloy, Brian Sussman

 among thirty other speakers

UCLA Faculty Center
405 N. Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, California

Click for details

Upcoming Event! Conspiracy Theory or Absolute Reality? The U.N.’s Agenda 21 and its Threat to Individual Freedom, Private Property and National Sovereignty

May 23, 2011

American Freedom Alliance presents an afternoon seminar

Conspiracy Theory or Absolute Reality?
The U.N.’s Agenda 21 and its Threat to Individual Freedom,
Private Property and National Sovereignty


Jennifer Lahl
Michael Shaw
President, Freedom Advocates


Col. Samuel Kastel
(Colonel in the IDF Reserves)

Sunday, May 29, 2011
2:00 pm – 8:00 pm
(including dinner)

Location: to be disclosed upon RSVP

Admission: $35.00

Parking: Free by Valet

An event in support of the AFA summer conference
Big Footprint: Is Green the New Tyranny?
Sunday June 12- Monday, June 13, 2011

Agenda 21 is the United Nations’ initiative to control the world’s resources under the pretext of environmental protection. Employing counterfeit science, it declares that a planetary catastrophe
resulting from human activity is well underway and that it can only be arrested by the surrender of material comforts, reduced energy consumption and a transfer of wealth. Agenda 21 has proliferated countless unelected bodies worldwide that dictate so-called environmental policy to governments, locally, nationally and internationally. With patient, incremental steps, often advancing beneath the radar of public awareness, Agenda 21 is the gradual implementation of global government, often referred to by its advocates as “The New World Order.” It seeks to dissolve the nation state, eliminate private property, and curtail individual freedom. Ultimately it envisions absolute control over every aspect of our lives.


Michael Shaw is a licensed attorney and CPA. He built a career in the development and operation of a multi-state self storage company. Today he is an abundance ecologist and the creator of Liberty Garden, a 75 acre coastal native plant oasis on the coast of Santa Cruz County. Michael’s primary focus is centered on guiding Freedom Advocates, a
tax exempt organization, that works to deliver the message that in America, government was designed to protect individual rights. This is in stark contrast to the globalist doctrine behind Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (now adopted by the current U.S. Administration). Michael and his expanding team at Freedom Advocates explain how this agenda infiltrates our lives at the local level, and what we can do to stop it..

Colonel Samuel Kastel served with distinction with the Israel Defense Forces, participating in the 1982 Lebanon War and 2006 Lebanon War as well as in many aspects of Israeli intelligence. Today his work focuses on the attempts of NGOs and multilateral organizations to delegitimize the State of Israel, developing a particular expertise with regard to the threats emanating from the United Nations and multilateral
organizations. He is in the preliminary stage of investigating Agenda 21. He has already discovered that it is having a strategic impact on Israel from top down policies within the government and from hostile NGOs outside the government. He will share his recent findings.

Please respond to the American Freedom Alliance (310) 444 3085
or at

Click here for AFA Lecture Series Page

Freedom Fueled the American Moon Shot

May 23, 2011

Freedom Fueled the American Moon Shot.

The above article was published on American Thinker yesterday, and was written by the American Freedom Alliance’s Senior Fellow, Larry Greenfield. The text is reproduced below.

May 22, 2011

Freedom Fueled the American Moon Shot

By Larry Greenfield

50 years ago this Wednesday, on May 25th, 1961, President John F. Kennedy committed the United States to win the space race, thus fulfilling one of humanity’s dearest dreams:
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.
Conceived half a century ago, during the Eisenhower Administration, and conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Apollo program responded to the surprise Soviet Sputnik 1 orbital satellite.
America’s scientific ambitions, human achievements, and exploratory adventures have been unparalleled ever since.
Noteworthy, Kennedy’s moonshot was announced during a speech to Congress that included his articulation of the Freedom Doctrine.
Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom’s cause.
No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom.
That is our conviction for ourselves–that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise.
We are not against any man — or any nation–or any system — except as it is hostile to freedom.
Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine.
President Kennedy’s speech is remembered for his Cold War challenge to catch up to and pass the Soviet military space threat.
But the speech was also a remarkable call to affirm the ever-renewing American revolutionary campaign for independence, security, prosperity, and liberty.
Today, 50 years after President Kennedy’s urging, President Obama has deeply disappointed many Americans, including the first man to land on the moon, Neil Armstrong, with weak Presidential support for lunar exploration and continued human spaceflight.
Noting the decision to cancel the Ares 1 launch vehicle and the Constellation moon landing program, Armstrong and Apollo veterans Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan wrote publicly:
For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature.
Somehow, Mr. Obama still dares to call this time our Sputnik moment, our challenge to “win the future” against economic competitors in the fields of bio-science, clean energy technology, and computer engineering.
But what is this decade’s big vision for achievement, advancement and ambition?
Imperative must be national projects such as energy independence, border security, counter-terrorism, and innovative re-industrialization to compete against China, India, Brazil, and other emerging economies.
American leadership will also develop medical treatments and cures in cardiology and cancer and countless diseases.  We shall partner as well for global food, water, and environmental sustainability by incentivizing governments towards internal decency, and international trade and security.  
But, perhaps the most important mission of our time is within the American civic mind.  We must nurture a return to the American founding principle of individual liberty itself, so severely threatened by the growth over the past 50 years of big government and its entitled constituencies, who would be unrecognizable to the patriots who declared independence and pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.
Two American Presidents of the past half century, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, repeatedly insisted that the American future was bright and positive, calling forth a new frontier and remaining always a shining city on a hill.
This spirit was captured when brave Astronaut Armstrong took his first step on the moon on July 20, 1969, declaring:
That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
The seven words on the plaque that remains on the surface of the Moon, in the Sea of Tranquility, where America’s noblest hopes and aspirations landed, are:
We came in peace for all mankind.
Inspired by liberty, Americans have always been dreamers, discoverers, and doers.
President Kennedy boldly promoted our national lunar space program, and called for us to chase the stars and touch the face of the moon, the romantic symbol throughout history of possibilities outside our normal reach.
The Apollo freedom flight reached its target and returned, inviting us to dream American dreams again and again.
Wherever we go next, we go forward in freedom, the essential American spirit and still the American way.
Larry Greenfield is fellow in American studies at the Claremont Institute, and Senior Fellow of the American Freedom Alliance.

5th AFA International Conference of the Air: China Ascendant: Is the U.S. Losing it’s Status?

May 23, 2011

Yesterday, American Freedom Alliance Senior Fellows Avi Davis (author of this blog) and Larry Greenfield co-hosted the American Freedom Alliance’s 5th International Conference of the Air. The conference included Gordon Chang, David P. Goldman, Ross Terill, and Professor June Teufel Dreyer, and looked at the rise of China and what that could mean for the U.S. If you missed it, you can listen to it at any time at Western Word Radio, where it (and all other Western Word Radio shows) are archived for your convenience.

AFA’s Conference of the Air series bring together academics and experts on topics relevant to the preservation of Western civilization. They are conducted via conference call and broadcasted live (and then archived) at Western Word Radio so that you can listen to them on your computer, no matter where you are in the world.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: