4+ Logics of Living Together on Planet Earth

29 Sep


It is misleading to describe ‘world order’ as consisting exclusively ofsovereign territorial states. This misimpression is further encouraged by the structure of the United Nations, whose members are states, and only states. The UN was established in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II, reflecting a West-centric orientation that emerged at the time, quickly morphing into the Cold War rivalry between the two states that were geopolitically dominant and ideologically antagonistic: the United States and Soviet Union.


Even in the UN, however, this surface allegiance to statism is misleading. The geopolitical dimension was highlighted in the UN Charter by conferring a veto power on five winners in the recently concluded war, which amounted to the grant of a right of exception with respect to international law.


But there are differences in hard and soft power that make the interactions among states within the UN exhibit more inequality than is suggested by this still prevailing Westphalian myth of the equality among sovereign states. Some states contribute far more to the UN budget than others, and their views carry more weight; others are richer, bigger, more informed about some issues, are better at lobbying for support, and some play above their diplomatic weight by clever political maneuvers. And there are several kinds of non-states active behind the scenes that exert varying degrees of influence depending on the subject-matter.


Global policy is mainly shaped outside the UN by a bewildering array of formal and informal actors that participate in a bewildering variety of ways in international life. The world economy is substantially controlled by business oriented alignments such as the World Economic Forum that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland, or the gatherings of economically powerful states grouped together as the G-7, later becoming the G-8, and more recently the G-20 to accommodate shifts in trade and investment patterns, and give recognition to such new alignments as the BRICs.


As such, the shorthand designation of world order by reference to the 1648 Treaties of Westphalia that brought the Thirty Years War to an end serves as a convenient starting point for understanding the way authority and power are deployed in the world. Yet it must be supplemented by the recognition that the Westphalian framework has evolved through the years. Beyond this, it is not sufficient to rely on a statist logic to explain the main patterns of behavior that constitute world politics in the 21st century, which reflect the agendas of political extremist groups and transnational corporations and banks, as much as they do states. In fact, national governments are often subordinated to and instrumentalized by individuals and groups promoting the interests of business and finance.


Statist Logic. Despite these qualifications, states do remain the main political actor on the global stage, and the principal agent of diplomacy. The doctrinal ideas of territorial sovereignty continue to provide the basic organizing principle for the conduct of ordinary transnational relations. It is further important to realize that most political leaders and their chief advisors are ‘realists’ who purport to act on the basis of maximizing national interests and accompanying values even when they are in actuality serving the interests of transnational capital to the detriment of their own citizenry.


The boundaries of the state shape the outer limits of political community for most persons living on the planet , but some states contain within their borders one or more specific ethnicity that deems itself a distinct people and nation, which if it perceives itself as the target of discrimination or even a victim of submerged identity, may regard itself as ‘a captive nation’ that seeks a separate political existence that ensures the preservation of cultural memory and national pride. In this sense, the ‘nation’ represented by such a phrase as ‘the national interest’ may be profoundly misleading if understood to refer to the interests of an entire population within its borders rather than that of the dominant ethnicity or religion. Throughout the world there are many internationally unrepresented peoples seeking to form their own state in accordance with the right of self-determination, which if carried to extremes, threatens the unity of almost all sovereign states.


Sometimes, this process is a forcible one as with the establishment of Kosovo with the help of NATO in 1999, sometimes it is a consensual separation, as with the establishment of Slovakia. Democratic states may offer restive minorities the opportunity to secede by referendum as in the recent case of Scotland, but some forms of secession are resisted as was the case with American Civil War or more recently, the PKK efforts to establish in eastern Turkey a separate state of Kurdistan, as well as Spain’s treatment of the main separatist movement of the Basque people as essentially a terrorist organization.


Many individuals depend on citizenship to avoid the acute vulnerability of ‘statelessness,’ which is a status without rights or protection, and suggests the primacy of states in the life of most people, whether consciously realized or not. The plight of economic migrants and refugees fleeing combat zones suggests the humanitarian ordeal experienced by many people who are not securely connected to a state capable of providing the fundamental ingredients of a sustainable lives. Refugees may be citizens with rights in the country they escaped from, but generally find themselves victimized anew by the country within which they sought sanctuary. Some governments adopt humane and generous approaches to refugees and stateless persons, but it is voluntary and the affected individuals are not the recipient of effective rights even if ‘human rights’ are based on being human, and not on citizenship or nationality.


Geopolitical Logic. As statist logic is premised on equality before the law and in formal diplomatic relations, geopolitical logic is premised on inequality and the right of exception with respect to that portion of international law concerning issues of war and peace, and what is called ‘national security,’ or more broadly, ‘vital interests.’ While statism is descriptive of the horizontal dimension of world order within the Westphalian framework, geopolitics constitutes the vertical dimension that has been present ever since the modern structure of world order emerged in Europe in the mid-seventeenth century. Various empires exhibited the formalization of this vertical dimension as did European colonialism, which at its height after World War I, dominated much of the world. The anti-colonial movements of the last half of the twentieth century produced many newly independent sovereign states, universalizing the horizontal development of world politics.


In the post-colonial global setting of the early twenty-first century the vertical dimension of world order is disguised to some degree because it was weakened and discredited in the past hundred years. These disguises make reference to certain normative justifications for the imposition of political will by the strong on the weak. Among the most prominent of these legal and moral arguments favoring otherwise prohibited uses of force are ‘self-defense,’ ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘responsibility to protect’ or ‘R2P,’ and ‘nonproliferation.’ In each situation, depending on the facts the rationalization may be more or less plausible as a cover for a strategically motivated geopolitical maneuver. It seemed somewhat plausible to liberate Kosovo from Serbia in 1999, given the threat of ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of the Srebrenica atrocity, but it was also clearly motivated by the interest in maintaining NATO as a useful instrument of coercion in a post-Cold War setting, a demonstration conveniently coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the alliance. Similarly, it seemed reasonable in 2011 to intervene in Libya to prevent a civilian massacre by Qaddafi forces in the city of Benghazi, although it was undoubtedly also true that the high quality oil reserves added a strategic incentive to the humanitarian impulse to protect threatened Libyan civilians. In contrast, without oil, the atrocities taking place in Syria produced a much weaker expression of international concern. Each of these situations is complex, opening the way for contradictory interpretations as to the humanitarian effects of action and non-action, as well as the assessment of the importance of the strategic interests at stake.


The geopolitical logic trumps statist logic in relation to international uses of force, and helps explain the marginalization of international law and the UN in the war/peace context. The constraints that are operative with respect to geopolitics derive from considerations of cost/benefit analysis, pressures exerted by group politics, prudential concerns about nuclear weaponry and avoiding casualties to its military personnel, and the sporadic anti-war restraints of public opinion (especially in liberal democracies). In the recent American-led coalition created as a response to threats posed by ISIS (‘Islamic State of Iraq & Syria,’ also known by other names), President Obama did not even bother to justify recourse to force by reference to either international law or the UN, and seemed concerned only that he had a legal basis within the American constitutional framework to act as he did. Significantly, as well, most of the domestic controversy focused on this issue of authorizing warlike behavior without any participation by Congress, showing no worries about acting contrary to international law and without a UN mandate for recourse to non-defensive force.


Cosmopolitan Logic. Partly as a result of economic globalization and partly due to the impact of global challenges associated with nuclear weapons and climate change, there is an emerging appreciation that neither statism nor geopolitics can protect overall hman wellbeing and survival aspects of what might best be called the human or global interest. Despite decades of aspirational language, there seems to be no prospect in the immediate future of freeing humanity from the looming threat of nuclear catastrophe. The challenge of the weaponry has been geopolitically degraded in the form of creating a nonproliferation regime that distorts priorities by conceiving of the main danger deriving from countries that do not have nuclear weapons rather than those that do. The 2003 aggressive war undertaken by the United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq was mainly rationalized as a counter-proliferation undertaking, epitomizing the subordination of cosmopolitan interests in getting rid of nuclear weapons to the geopolitics of managing their control and dissemination.


A similar dynamic is present in relation to climate change, and the failed effort to contain the emission of greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide.The UN mechanisms for lawmaking treaties have been unable to agree upon an obligatory framework that takes account of the scientific consensus on the need for strict regulation of the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere, and the resultant harmful effects of global warming. As a result the situation worsens, and irresponsibly the growing burdens of adaptation are shifted to the future.


Without the formation of a political community of global scope it is unlikely that cosmopolitan logic will have any significant impact on behavior that reflects strong national interests and geopolitical priorities. The preconditions for such a development do not seem present as nationalist ideologies continues to maintain the dominance of statism and geopolitics despite their dysfunctional implications for the future of the human species. This persistence raises some deep questions about whether there exists a sufficient species will to survive. Until the advent of the Anthropocene Age such an imperative did not exist, and survival threats as they occurred were directed at particular societies or civilizations, that is, posing sub-species threats, but not endangering the species itself. What distinguishes the Anthropocene is the impact of human activities on the fundamental balances that have allowed life and social development to proceed.


There have been past cases where cosmopolitan concerns have been addressed because competing logics were not seriously engaged: public order of the oceans, prohibition of ozone depleting technologies, ecological preservation of Antarctica. Until the atomic attacks on Japanese cities in the closing days of World War II the cosmopolitan horizons of human activity were treated as matters of idealistic and spiritual concerns, but not relevant to issues of bio-political persistence. Even Woodrow Wilson’s dream that the League of Nations would cause the institution of war to fade away was never taken seriously by the political leaders of the day, especially in Europe, who well understood that their privileged position of vertical control (that is, colonial system) rested on an atmosphere of permanent war to ensure that ‘the natives’ would not get uppity.


Civil Society Logic. The perspectives and activities of civil society occupy a broad and diverse spectrum of concerns, and contain elements of the other three logics that together compose world order. The normative motivations of transnational civil society actors do establish an existential constituency disposed toward the realization of human and global interests. These actors have been active in relation to the promotion of human rights, environmental protection, nuclear disarmament, and climate change. That is, civil society perspectives often merge in these venues with cosmopolitan perspectives, and present unified critical responses to statism and geopolitics. The counter-conferences at global policy events illustrate such encounters, and are likely to intensify as the awareness of global crises grow and the experience of the seriousness of unmet global challenges deepens. A distinctive feature of civil society logic is engagement with values and change, and a certain distrust of detached thought that presents itself as ‘neutral.’ The spirit of civil society was expressed unforgettably for me by a graffiti written on a wall in the city of Vancouver: “Thought Without Action Equals Zero.”


In a larger historical sense, the question before all of us is whether civil society can become an agent of historical transformation in relation to cosmopolitan logic, thereby joining thought with action. Only such a reconstituted political imagination has any chance of producing policy and behavioral adjustments that make the human future a brighter prospect than now appears to be the case.


Hope to balance despair depends on our according unrealistic confidence in the capacity of civil society movements to achieve transformative results, what I have called in the past ‘the realism of a politics of impossibility’ or ‘a necessary utopianism.’ Nothing less seems responsive to the magnitude of the civilizational challenges already negatively impacting on human wellbeing. I have little doubt that those ‘realists’ we rely upon as dutiful, taxpaying citizens are leading us down a path heading toward doomsday. It is time we shifted our allegiances and energies to the citizen pilgrims among us who are pointing us toward a humane and sustainable future for life on planet earth.


23 Responses to “4+ Logics of Living Together on Planet Earth”

  1. ray032 September 29, 2014 at 10:03 am #

    I agree with your analysis, Professor.

    Perhaps I have not said it directly as you do, “I have little doubt that those ‘realists’ we rely upon as dutiful, taxpaying citizens are leading us down a path heading toward doomsday, but I have implied this reality in other words many times in this Blog.

    It seems there is a huge tidal wave/Tsunami coming everybody sees, but feels powerless to stop it.

    All the stats, facts and figures tell us there is no longer even the illusion of “trickle down economics.” The cash is flowing up!. Like with any pyramid system or scheme, when there is no money left at the bottom to flow up, the whole pyramid structure collapses. It’s happening NOW and the people seem oblivious to it developing.

    On another matter, this appeared in my FB Newsfeed:
    Jonathan Cook, journalist
    I recently received a new ebook by Anthony Lowstedt that looks to be an interesting and substantial comparative study of three historical apartheid systems, including Israel. It has a foreword by Ilan Pappe, and a postscript by Richard Falk – and Lowstedt has made it available online free of charge. Those interested can download it here:

    Click to access apartheid-2014.pdf

  2. Laurie Knightly September 29, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    There’s always the frustration of a role for the individual in trying to be of assistance in solving a crisis. Maybe we could start with signing sacred vows beginning with one like this:
    As an American, I refuse to swear unconditional loyalty to Israel or unconditional enmity to Cuba. My loyalties from dyad to nations depend on extenuating circumstances.

  3. Francis Oeser September 30, 2014 at 7:39 am #

    GLAD to join the multitude of agreement with your views!. What intregues me is the persuasive attitude towards war, as if it is the only way we can change the world/interfer. THATTHAT seems the ancient (primative) attitude needing alteration. As if only flight/fight is our only option.

    (Commenting is almost impossib Sorry!!

  4. Beau Oolayforos September 30, 2014 at 6:20 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,
    Although the historical sweep of your challenging article is somewhat beyond my personal ken, since you did mention some current events….I wonder does anyone share my suspicions about our most recent rush to war?
    In the spring of ’03, it astonished me that the Bush clique could sell an attack on an impoverished country, with a GDP probably less than most US states, because it allegedly threatened our national security?! It seems to me that the resources of ISIS, etc. must be that much less, and yet we hear hyperbole about their supposed ability to mount attacks on our homeland.
    One cannot not be sympathetic to waves of refugees, and victims of atrocities – things need to be done, of course, but I smell another PR snow job. BO

    • Richard Falk September 30, 2014 at 11:09 pm #

      Dear BO: There are good reasons for your concerns. Certainly the approach taken of air strikes
      does not suggest that there exist real worries about American security being at risk. Indeed, such
      tactics are likely to increase whatever threat does exist. And the tragedies of war are being once
      more imposed on the people of the region by external actors. It is deeply troubling. Thanks for your
      thoughtful comment. RF

  5. rehmat1 September 30, 2014 at 7:54 pm #

    The United Nations was created by the WW II victors. It’s created to maintain their colonial past by another tool, the “veto power”. The five veto powers at the UNSC make world’s “Unity Government”, which controlled by United States being the owner of land where UN is headquartered and the largest donor to UN’s annual budget.

    I remember, in the past, Iran tried to pull the carpet under Washington by offering to boot UN budget if its headquarters were moved out of United States.

    United Nations is part of imperialistic culture to block every truth. For example, last year under pressure from Israel advocacy group, B’nai B’rith International (BBI), United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Swiss ambassador at the UN Paul Seger decided to cancel Annie Machon’s address at a June 6 briefing jointly organized by the UN Department of Public Information Non-Governmental Relations and the Swiss government’s permanent UN mission.

    Annie Machon, a former official of British intelligence MI5 has claimed that September 11, 2001 and British 7/7 were inside jobs carried out with the help 0f Israeli Mossad.


    • Kata Fisher September 30, 2014 at 8:17 pm #

      This is what I understand:

      It would be important to move UN headquarters from US to more Neutral Geographical Position.

      Also, all UN documents (in reference to governing) have to be proofread for substance-authenticity.

      For Example: Freedom of Faiths is mixed up with Freedom of Religions — so that people of Faith have no way practicing their Faith without some consequence– or invalid condemnation, while Religiously-Lawless can do whatever they will, and that without any consequence; and that, while people of Faith have to put up with them. People of Faith can put up with them; however, all human race just can’t.

      • rehmat1 October 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm #

        I know religious bigotry – but what I don’t understand, why an Israeli Jew woman is not allowed to marry a non-Jewish Israeli?

      • ray032 October 1, 2014 at 6:08 pm #

        There is a strain in Judaism Today that is just as anti-women as extremist Muslims.

        “Despite public outcry over the disruption of an El Al flight from New York to Israel last week after male ultra-Orthodox Jewish passengers refused to be seated next to women, El Al says it has no official policy for dealing with the issue and has no intention of putting one in place.”


        I have read earlier reports of the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel insisting women sit at the back of the bus or walk on the other side of the street.

      • Kata Fisher October 1, 2014 at 8:04 pm #


        Can you explain that because I do not know what you mean by saying that what you say?

        Specifically this: “why an Israeli Jew woman is not allowed to marry a non-Jewish Israeli?”

        By Law (religious) or civil order / civil court?

      • rehmat1 October 2, 2014 at 10:40 am #

        ray032 – It seems you have been reading too much of Daniel Pipes filth. Religiously, Islam has provided more rights to women than Judeo-Christians and Hindus can dream off. It’s not only in Israel but also right in New York, Jewish women are not allowed to drive a car, walk on footpath besides males and cannot recite Jewish Torah.


        @Kata Fisher – a Jewish woman cannot marry a non-Jew, both under Talmudic law and Israeli public racism. Check out Israeli magazine +972 to find the truth.

      • Kata Fisher October 2, 2014 at 8:25 pm #


        What is the truth?

      • rehmat1 October 3, 2014 at 5:48 am #

        Karla – the truth is what professor Daniel Bar-Tal (Tel Aviv University) claimed in his 2010 study.


      • Kata Fisher October 3, 2014 at 9:24 am #

        Israeli would have Old Testament and Jewish Freedom of Faith, and by that to pursue Holy Land Territory under spiritual authority of Old Testament.

        Israelis are, however, wrapped up in Leviathan’s Labyrinth of Religious Freedom/s (trap of civil-ecclesiastical beast), and with that are in a dead-end.

        They can not achieve for themselves that which is promised by Old Testament to Jewish-Exiles without their way of blood-shed / denial.

        They are in a dead-end with themselves and to themselves without Freedom of Faith of Jews in Holy Land.

        Religious freedom is the variety of freedoms that is fitting to counterfeit and Lawless members of any Faith community that they like to claim to themselves. They eat and drink judgment upon themselves in Holy Land, instead (both Arabs and Jews…and I am sure others as well). We can distinguish and note that.

        Faiths will sometimes refuse marriages to unbelievers unless an accurate conversion to Faith takes place. There is a definite order of Faith marriages, and they differ.

        Roman-Catholics do such things, as well – but they are sometimes all hypocrite about it, and not due to good of the Faith members that they have in mentality, all together. It is valid, however, to either discourage or encourage inter-Faith marriage for women due to her spiritual well-being, only.

        Further, Vatican II embraces heresy on Ecumenical-Christianity issues.

        I do not believe that Church marriages are much valid, unless performed by Charismatic priesthood and /or Baptism of Gods Spirit of the couple in addition to Church rituals prior to that.

        Judicial marriages /civil marriages are irrelevant to the order of the Faith and vice-verse. I see no importance of either to each other.

        Marriages cannot be forbidden.

        There was a time here in US that they were forbidding marriage between different races which is very illegal eccalisticaly, and state (US Church-state) imposed that was, in fact.

        Only wickedness of a tribe would be prerequisite for a Scriptural discrimination and refusal of Church-marriage to them, unless they get Baptized in God’s Spirit by free fall. Still, Church can not forbid anyone to marry in a civil court either evil or good person — they can warn of consequence, however.

        Marriages cannot be forbidden in civil courts for anyone–they have to be preformed by the city/state as civil one’s.

        Eccalistical marriages would yield automatic conversion of a woman to the Faith /Religion of her husband—she can’t take her husband out of his Faith.

        Lay-people /Religion does whatever; women take authority over their husbands and move them outside their Faiths/Religions. These marriages are not valid—I do not see how they can be eccalistically valid marriages. Impossible by the Laws of Faith/s.

        Also, marriages are one valid way of conversion to other Faiths that are legitimate – but woman has to convert. I do not know that anything else is valid. I did see some hilarious things on that topic.

        What is Israeli-civil racism – what are they doing civil that reflects forbidding of the marriage and racism on that topic?

    • rehmat1 October 3, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

      Kata Fisher – Your Israeli Hasbara is full of BS.

      The great majority of world Jewish population don’t follow OT. They observe the teachings of Talmud written a century after the disappearance of Christ. And I bet you know what Israeli historian Dr. Israel Shahak said about Talmud in his masterpiece, “Jewish Religion Jewish History”.

      Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, had claimed that the European Jews (Ashkenazis) are not Semitic (Hebrew) people but are descendent of Khazarian Turkic tribes.


      • Kata Fisher October 3, 2014 at 6:48 pm #

        Dear rehmat1:

        I do not appreciate what you say, but I can appreciate your truth – meaning you truth is criticism- invalid, at is best. Is It Islam? I do not know that. Is it either Religion (false believe/s systems) or secularism? I really do not get impressed by false Islam, Judaism and Christianity…I can accept in excuse secularism because in essence is not destructive as Religious impressions are, and as it has nothing to do with Faith-destruction within Faith itself.

        So, you really have to follow the Books given by the Prophets (perhaps not given by the prophets as not written down by the prophets) … and/or Apostolic writings as corporate authentic- Church (for the Church-authentic in corporate).

        About your argument:

        I must disagree with you.

        Your argument is that Jews do not follow Old Testament and by that they have no right repent—as majority? Still, minority of Jews is in never broken off Judeo-Faith and /or Tradition, and by that alone they can take full responsibility for corrections of the lay-people intentions…not that they are as a minority of Jews in valid-Faith and / or Traditions responsible for correcting lay-people that follow their freedom of Religion and no Judaism as Faith, and freedom of that…

        We have heard about arguments that “European Jews (Ashkenazis) are not Semitic (Hebrew) people but are descendent of Khazarian Turkic tribes…”

        Look and see: people are in the Land –wanted or not wanted—they are. The gene-study links them to their mothers family-lines (according to another interpretation of research data).

        Who moved them and why? Irrelevant? It’s upon the head’s of those who moved them, and if God Himself has moved them it makes no difference no more –we say–all are staying, unless they themselves reconsider on that by their own understanding and will toward Judaism. Look, people repent and are automatically in the right position with God – the Land is theirs by Old Testament –no matter what.

        And no—Holy Land is not in Arab-Israelites as theirs one and only and under Islamic spiritual authority. It is Old Testament, as Spiritual Authority and Spirit of God.

        Again, I am not “Israeli Hasbara is [that is] full of BS”, and I do not appreciate being referenced as that – if that is exactly what you intended to say.

        This is why:

        First, I am Roman-Catholic.

        Second, I am Church-Charismatic and in ordained condition.

        Third, I am not Israeli nor own any loyalty to state of Israel. To Jews I do remain loyal by Old Testament, and by Spirit of Faith, alone.

        Fourth, I do not know what Israeli Hasbara is—I do not take part in any organizations in my free will and awareness of my own conscience, anywhere. I am only in agreement by Spirit with Spirit-filled individuals.

        Am I also good to argue on details with you as just by ideas? No, I really do not.

        As you see you are wrong in your conclusions.

        You need to explain your conclusions as they are inaccurate as of right now – to me.
        My understanding comes from teaching of the Law/Old Testament by Apostle Paul (Pauline writings, specifically) according to the Gospel of Church-Charismatic, as I happened to observe few things while ordained and in Spirit of God.

        With that, only BS I have to offer is BS in Religion (BS Religion) –an awesome major. Sure, awesome…for I just wish I am allowed to apply…(a very sad face).

  6. ray032 October 1, 2014 at 6:12 pm #

    Richard, this talk by Chris Hedges Today, dovetails with the essentials within this article.

    • rehmat1 October 3, 2014 at 5:51 am #

      “Those of us who denounce the suffering caused by Israel and its war crimes against the Palestinians and who support the BDS movement is accustomed to sleazy Israeli smear campaigns. I have been repeatedly branded as an anti-Semite by the Israeli lobby, including for my book “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.” That some of these dissident voices, such as Max Blumenthal, who wrote “Goliath: Fear and Loathing in Greater Israel,” one of the best accounts of contemporary Israel, are Jewish does not seem to perturb right-wing Israeli propagandists who see any deviation from the Israeli government line as a form of religious heresy,” says Chris Hedges, March 17, 2014.


      • Laurie Knightly October 4, 2014 at 6:12 pm #

        rehmati…. note your first paragraph. You have Columbia University which it isn’t. This is important stuff you have referenced and the move against the exposing of Israel is a witch hunt in our colleges. I’m just becoming aware of AMCHA and it’s upsetting. I hope the schools will have some heavy lawsuits leveled against them if they
        continue attempts to ruin professors for their honest candor.

      • rehmat1 October 4, 2014 at 7:56 pm #

        Laurie Knightly – glad to tell you Saul Hillel Benjamin, Jewish headmaster of the Epiphany School of Global Studies took your advice and on Friday sued American author, scriptwriter film producer and founder of the school, Nicholas Sparks for hating Jews, gays and Blacks.

        Benjamin has accused Sparks of having made him justify his Jewish heritage in front of the school, as parents of students fired insults at him.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: