Guardian
News: Israel-Gaza violence: flattened buildings, rockets and communal unrest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpmthhsDTiE
Israel's
big lie: This isn't self defense — it's a war crime, aided and abetted by the
U.S.
https://www.salon.com/2021/05/15/israels-big-lie-this-isnt-self-defense--its-a-war-crime-aided-and-abetted-by-the-us/
John
Oliver: Israel v Palestine Conflict
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkQ4HZAepYc&t=222s
This
article would never have been written had it not been for Israel’s Star Wars
attack on Palestinians, who had no chance against the machine Fort Israel. Israel’s
campaign against Gaza began with airstrikes. 950 targeted attacks demolished,
completely or partially 18 buildings including four high-rise towers, 40
schools and four hospitals, a refugee camp, 19 medical facilities, the al-Jalaa
Highrise housing offices of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera, 60
condominiums, 94 buildings in Gaza demolished, comprising 461 housing and
commercial units. 256 Palestinians, including 66 children killed, 1,900
Palestinians injured, 72,000 Palestinians displaced. Israel conducted 1,500
air, land and sea strikes on the Strip. (Facts gather from Wikipedia.)
I
thought I would hit back on behalf of the Palestinians, but only with words, no
bombs. Don’t think I’m sympathetic toward the Jewish Ideology known as Islam. I’m
not. But I am sympathetic toward ordinary people—moms, pops, and kids—just living
their lives, causing nobody no trouble, when all hell breaks loose and kills
and injures them, the kids especially, and destroys their homes, neighborhoods,
and places of work. So, I decided to hit back with a stinging truth.
Prologue
The
question concerning anti-Semitism addressed here is whether or not the Jewish
people have been innocent victims or have they like other peoples misbehaved so
as to trigger animosity toward them. The American people have committed many
immoral acts, but eventually most of us owned up to them. Usually, the
motivation has been greed; however, the Judeo-Christian ideology has also
played a role. The conquest of North America and the harm that result was
justified in the context of the Old Testament. North America was Christians’
Canaan to be conquered, developed, and transformed. Christians considered
themselves as God’s chosen people. Their mission, as stated in the Book of
Genesis, was to subdue the land and multiply. Christians would be the
instruments of the redemption of Native Americans. If the pagan Indians would
not be redeemed, then they would be slaughters as the pagans were slaughtered
by the Jews, as described in the Old Testament. Other pagans from Africa were made slaves, but it was believed that as slaves their lives were infinitely improved because
their masters would ensure that they would be redeemed in Christ.
Wild
nature would be subdued either by domestication or destruction. About these
events, endless books have been written by American scholars, books about slaves,
black pioneers; books about the conquest of Native Americans and about their
profound cultures; and books about the destruction of nature’s wild
environments and wild creatures. Americans’ mea culpa began quite early in
American history. One finds its emergence in Fenimore Cooper’s novel Pioneers published during the first half
of the 19th century. Then with the Civil War. My point is that many
Americans have recognized the wrongs committed by their nation—even later and
most poignantly and disgustingly with the Vietnam War. Yet these were evil
events that occurred and ended. And most if not all Americans have admitted
their faults and have tried to learn from them.
That
is not easily done when the cause of harm is an ideology. There, the enmity, such as
that found in the religious ideology of the Old Testament, is unconditional,
absolute, and continuing. That book describes the ancient Jews’ hating non-Jews
just for who they were, not personally but categorically as the enemies of God.
And as God’s chosen people, they declared themselves to be superior to the rest of
humanity for that reason alone, not because they had made contributions to
humanity’s welfare and progress but simply because they created an ideology
that declared them as such. Self-elevation via an ideology is not in itself the
problem. That the ideology declares other people as both evil and without moral
rights is the problem.
If
an ideology is adopted as truth rather than a product of the imagination, it
becomes lenses that influence the believers’ interpretation of reality,
including judgments of morality and value. And when the Jewish ideology was adopted
by pagans who then became Judeo-Christians and Judeo-Muslims, they turned on their own people for the non-crime of worshiping many gods or no god.
Neither would be a crime even if God existed. If God believed it was a crime,
he would be wrong. Simply declaring a behavior as wrong doesn’t make it wrong
even if the declaration comes from God. The notion that the true God would know
what is moral and immoral makes sense. The problem occurs when believers claim
to know what God believes. They don’t.
The
Old Testament contains moral decrees based on the religious opinions of
prophets, clerics, and scribes, not moral judgments based on reason, which
requires philosophy, not theology. What are actually found in scripture are
opinions of religious ideologues that came to be considered the declarations of
God. Once the opinions became scripture they became unquestionable dogma. In
the Book of Numbers (15:32-36) a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath is
sentenced to death. According to Moses the Lord demands that the man be stoned
to death. Most likely he was collecting firewood for a family meal. Questions:
Why is God’s command always given through a spokesman high up in the religious
hierarchy? Why should the spokesman be believed? It is important here to
recognize this as authoritarianism that demands that author be obeyed without
question. Today gays are hated and often attacked and killed. Why? Because
Jewish ideology introduced into the world the idea that homosexuality is a
capital offense because it is an abomination to God. That was not the case in Greco-Roman civilization until Rome adopted Judeo-Christianity as the official religion of the
Roman Empire. That not only created enemies and victims where none existed
before but also sins that did not exist before, such as being a homosexual or a
pagan.
Every Nation’s Hands Are Dirty
The
question concerning anti-Semitism is whether or not the Jewish people have been
innocent victims or have they misbehaved so as to trigger animosity toward
them. Americans have committed endless immoral acts throughout America’s
history even up to today that have triggered animosity toward America and
Americans. Its reputation has been severely tarnished by slavery, destruction
of nature, the extermination of Native Americans tribes, and endless immoral
wars motivated by greed and ideology.
Every
nation, be it the France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, etc., has tainted
itself. Are the Jews any different, simply innocent victims of negative
thinking? The answer is no. They created an ideology that declared all the
peoples of the world except their own and sometime even their own, as evil,
worthless, and having no moral rights. In other words, that ideology—Judaism—placed
all non-members of the ideology in a situation similar to the anti-Semitism
that the Jews condemn. These other-than-us groups weren’t even opponents of the
ideology. And the Old Testament shows that Jews were aggressed only in response
to their aggression, sometimes justified, but not because of their religious
ideology.
The
demonic quality of the Jewish ideology is that it embodies a nihilistic
attitude toward others because it declares their value to be that of nothing.
Judaism declared pagans to be without value simply because they were pagans,
not because they were aggressors. The most absurd aspect of the ideology is
that it declares that God considers pagans an abomination. Thus the ideology
uses God to substantiate its nihilistic claims toward others—perhaps for the
first time in history. Unfortunately, this ideology spread via Apostle Paul
like a malignant virus into Greco-Roman civilization, later into Arabia, and
finally throughout the world in the form of bloody conquests.
Worse
yet, this negative, nihilistic thinking became encoded in religious scriptures
(the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Quran) thus like Frankenstein’s
monster couldn’t be killed once created. Evil men come and go, but religious ideologies,
unlike empirical and secular value judgments, are forever. It is important to
understand that ideologies are based on nothing more than ideas, mostly
invented. And what the three religious Judaisms did was to transform non-believers into
despicable heathens, infidels, apostates having no worth or moral rights based
on the ideas of religious ideologues such as Abraham, Moses, Apostle Paul, and
Muhammad (though the first two men were inventions like Superman and Batman).
Jesus is not on the list because Jesus the man was forgotten once Apostle Paul
transformed him into the supernatural Superhero Jesus Christ.
Jews
would have us believe that they are simply innocent victims. They're not. They
complain about anti-Semitism (hostility toward Jews), often rightly so. Yet, they would have us believe
that anti-Semitism is a mysterious phenomenon because it
is an attitude without justification. The Holocaust Encyclopedia says, “The term antisemitism was coined only
in the nineteenth century, but anti-Jewish hatred and Judeophobia (fear of
Jews) date back to ancient times and have a variety of causes.” Yet, the
article refers only to pogroms, violent
riots launched against Jews, blood libels—false rumors that Jews used the blood
of Christian children for ritual purposes, anti-Semitism politics, and publications
such as the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion. The focus is only on the haters, as if Jews themselves are not and
never have been at fault. So, perhaps the topic needs to be revisited,
beginning with a visit to ancient times and Jewish religious ideology.
Jews Created Enemies Where
there Were None Before
The
Old Testament is a religious ideology that declares that God hates non-Jews,
considering them an abomination. Yahweh tells his people, “Destroy
completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under
every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their
gods. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah
poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names
from those places. You must not worship the LORD your God in their way” (Deuteronomy
12:2-3).
The
Book of Exodus gleefully celebrates Yahweh’s inflicting all sorts of plagues
upon the Egyptians. And it’s all unnecessary because the Pharaoh is willing to allow
the Jews to leave, but Yahweh wants to show off to the pagan Egyptians. (Actually,
the Jews are showing off their God.) And he does this by visiting them with ten
very nasty plagues, including the tenth, the death of the first born, the very
same behavior that Herod the Great is vilified for supposedly committing,
though Yahweh slaughters ALL first born:
“The
Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of
Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the
dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the
night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry
in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead (11:29-30).
Jews
still celebrate the slaughter of Egyptian children during Passover. Egypt is
supposed to be the bad guy, yet Joseph was able to advise the Pharaoh on how to
prepare for the famine and as a result gained the favor of the Pharaoh who
promoted him to Prime Minister. During that time Joseph engages in fraud by
giving wealth that belongs to the Pharaoh to his own family. And F.E. Peters
tells us in The Harvest of Hellenism
that the Jewish population in ancient Egypt during the Hellenistic era may have
reached a million, most living in Alexandria where they “grew cultured and
prosperous” (296-297). So life couldn’t have been too bad for the Jews. During the Exodus,
"the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and said to them, 'Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill the whole assembly'" (Exodus 16:2-3).
But
the autocrats, rather than the people, always know what is best for the people.
And when the people acted on their own such as worshiping a golden calf, the
autocrats kill them, acting on orders from God, of course (3000 men murdered to
be exact, Exodus 32:28). Even God joins in by sending a plague on the people
(32:35). Important here is that scripture (ideology) can be used to justify
severely punishing disobedience even when the disobedience was joyful and
harmed no one. But the
Jews were prisoners of their hateful ideology, as they are today. That is why
they couldn’t compromise with the Canaanites then and can’t compromise with the
Palestinians today.
Deuteronomy: Death to Jews
Sympathetic to Paganism
“Your
own blood brother, your son, your daughter, your beloved wife, or your friend
who is like your soul mate may entice you quietly. He may tell you, ‘Let’s go
and serve other gods’ (whom neither you nor your ancestors have known from the
gods of the people that surround you—whether near or far from you—from one end
of the earth to the other). You are not to yield to him, listen to him, look
with pity on him, show compassion to him, or even cover up for him. Instead,
you are surely to execute him. You must be the first to put him to death with
your own hand, and then the hands of the whole community. Stone him to death,
because he sought to lure you from the Lord your God, who brought you from the
land of Egypt, from the land of slavery.” (13:6-10)
Deuteronomy: Conquest and
Extermination
“When
the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and
drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and
stronger than you—and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and
you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with
them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your
daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will
turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s
anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are
to due to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down
their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.” (7:1-5)
Book of Joshua and the Ethnic Cleansing
of Canaanites
“So
Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the
western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He
left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the
God of Israel, had commanded. Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza
and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. All these kings and their lands
Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought
for Israel.” (10:40-42) And Netanyahu is damn proud to be following in Joshua's bloody footsteps.
Following
Yahweh’s orders, eventually Jews “utterly destroyed all in the city [Jericho],
both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and ass, with the edge of the
sword” (Joshua 6:21). And why? Not because of what the people of Jericho did
but because of who they were: people Yahweh declared to be absolutely
worthless. Excuse me, but I don't see the difference between the Jews' treatment of the pagans of Jericho and Hitler's treatment of the Jews.
After
long years of wandering in the desert, permission came at last for the
Israelites to conquer the Promised Land. The story of Joshua is the story of
the conquest. Permission from whom? God, of course. Here we see one of the most
devastating notions that the Jews inflicted upon humanity: that conquest and
slaughter are justified if done according to God’s bidding. Judeo-Christians
and Judeo-Muslims would follow suit
The Old Testament Is an
Ideology of Hate
There is no book other than the Quran (inspired by Judaism) so fill with hatred of everyone. It is a declaration of hatred on a global scale. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is Lilliputian by comparison. The Old Testament declares not only that people outside one’s tribe are to be hated but that they are to be hated just for being outsiders. More than that, as such they have no moral rights and thus can be destroyed. In the most sinister fashion, the Abrahamic religions suspend all rights and values of outsiders so that toward others their religion becomes religious nihilism. How could the Jews create such an ideology and worldview and expect not to be hated?
Joshua
6:21 says, “Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women,
young and old, oxen, ship, and asses, with the edge of the sword.” This is
bloody nihilism, an absolute absence of morality. And the Holocaust was nothing more than a modern version of this mindset.
Then Came Along a Man Named
Jesus
I’m not a Judeo-Christian for
two reasons. The first is that I don’t want to be Judaized, which is basically
surrendering my mind to a religious ideology. I want to keep my mind free of
ideological clutter, and I don’t want to become slave to the Jews’ version of
God or any other God for that matter. Second, the Jewish religious ideology is
hideous and toxic. So what about Jesus? The existential, pre-corrupted Jesus
was a man of peace, spirituality, and morality. He argued that women and
children should be defended, not slaughtered. He protects women against
aggressive Pharisees. Traditional Jews were less gentle than Jesus. About a newly married wife accused of not
being a virgin the Old Testament says, “If, however, the charge is true and no
proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the
door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to
death” (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Such is the view of a tyrannical, vengeful
masculine God. How different from Jesus’ defense of the adulteress (John 8
verses 6-7) and the prostitute (Luke 7:47). What is seen in each case is the
Jungian anima at work in Jesus.
The uncorrupted, historical,
existential Jesus said Enough! There is a
better way to live, a way that involves helping rather than hurting, peace
rather than war. Jesus’s message concerning violence was, “You have heard
that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth’ (Leviticus 24:19-20).* But
I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right
cheek, turn to them the other cheek also’” (Matthew 5:38-39). The false Christ
savior (Apostle Paul’s construct) says, “Do not suppose that I have come to
bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew
10:34). These are not Jesus’ words but those of the writer of the gospel who is
full of hatred. Jesus ≠ Christ. The latter is an invention by Jews full of
hate. Jesus was the first Jew who believed hatred of the other needed to be
overcome. His parable of the Good Samaritan says as much. For that, the Jews
had him murdered.
* However I do agree with Leviticus 24:21: “whoever kills a
human being is to be put to death.” If the killing was murder, that is
intentional, and the victim innocent. A criminal who has taken an innocent
person’s life has no moral right to live his life. A murderer gives up his
right to live when he has denied another person that right. The very notion
that criminal monsters have a right to live is ludicrous. Jesus’ morality would
make sense if evil monsters would end up in Hell as he believed they did. But they won’t because Hell
doesn’t exist except the hell on earth created by evil monsters such as Hitler,
Stalin, and Mao, and I would include monsters made in America such as slave owners
who abused their slaves, Indians killers such as William Henry Harrison and Andrew
Jackson, and post-WWII warmongers such as LBJ and G.W. Bush.
Deicide
Of course Crucifixion wasn’t deicide
because Jesus was just a man. It was Paul who transformed him into a god making
Christianity a binary-theistic religion. His new and improved Judaism preferred
death to life. Jesus’ crime was to offer a new and improved variation of
Judaism that was peopled-centered rather than God-centered. For this he was
declared a heretic. A heretic is a free thinker and the ancient Jews did not tolerate
independent thinking, declaring heresy a capital crime. The Old Testament
describes a number of incidents of independent thinkers being put to death. One
involves a man named Korah who, along with two hundred and fifty leaders,
questions Moses’ authority. Korah’s concern is that Moses had become a
dictator. He says, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy...
Why then do you exalt yourself above the assembly of the Lord” (16:3). The
result is that Korah and his people are destroyed by God.
The Jews introduced into the world
heresy as a capital crime. Important here is the fact that if God (the ideology
in reality) destroys people, that is taken as a justification that his followers
can do the same. Charles Freeman tells us that Augustine’s rationale for
persecution would “be exploited in the centuries to come” against the “Cathars,
a sect which preached a return to the ascetic ideals of early Christianity:
‘Nearly twenty thousand of the citizens were put to the sword regardless of age
and sex.” The response of abbot Arnaud Amaury, who played a prominent role in
the Cathar Crusade, was “The workings of divine vengeance have been wondrous’”
(The Closing of the Western Mind 296).
“Augustine’s rationale for persecution was to be used to justify slaughter (as
of the Cathars or the native Peoples of America)” (299).
The effect of the heresy legacy has
been catastrophic. It would lead not only to the persecution of specific
religious groups within a religion, and there have been dozens, but to endless
religious wars such as those between Protestants and Catholics and between Sunni
and Shia Muslim sects.
Apostle Paul and the
Destruction of Classical Civilization
Paul
introduced the pagan-hating Jewish religious ideology into Rome. Emperor Constantine’s
adoption of Judeo-Christian ideology would bring classical civilization to an
end. Charles Freeman says at the end of his book, “I would reiterate the
central theme of this book: that the Greek intellectual tradition was suppressed
rather than simply faded away” (340). This catastrophic event has been recently
described in Catherine Nixey’s The
Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World. This might
have been avoided if Christians had let go of the old anti-pagan Judaism and
adopted only the teaching of Jesus, not Paul’s Christ. But they didn’t. What
happened was Paul and his gang of apostles infected Western civilization with
an alien eastern ideology, most likely born in Egypt where the Jews adopted it.
Jews were once just like all the other polytheists. So what changed? Freud
explains in his book Moses and Monotheism.
The Jews’ intolerant monotheism was a corruption of Western civilization and would
destroy it completely for a time during the Dark Ages, known for its killing of
witches and heretics, it destruction of schools of philosophy, it impediment of
scientific progress, its inquisitions, and its global program to conquer the
entire world in the name of Judeo-Christianity.
Islam Is a Jewish Religious
Ideology
Muslims are people who have been Judaized, that is, programmed by a Jewish religious ideology. That was made possible by Muhammad who adopted
Judaism as a means to power. He wasn’t the first. Moses was perhaps the first.
He was, Freud tells us in Moses and
Monotheism, “an Egyptian whom a people needed to make into a Jew” (16). He
was “perhaps a prince, priest, or high official—to place himself at the head of
a throng of culturally inferior immigrants, and to leave the country with them”
(18). Apostle Paul saw Jesus’ religious ideology as a means to power. His
writing dominates the New Testament. Then there was Augustine of Hippo (who was
no saint) who converted to Catholicism once he realized pagans were doomed in
Rome. He was second only to Paul in bringing to realization the Hebrew conquest
of the pagans. Then Muhammad would join the program, which was more like a
pogrom of pagans. For centuries to follow, Muslims would engage in blood
conquests of pagan nations until Islam ruled a territory equal to that of the
Roman Empire. Unlike Judeo-Christianity, Jesus had no influence upon Islam.
Islam took its guidance from the Old Testament. Islamic aggression continues
today.
Endless
histories describe even celebrate the Islamic conquests. I’ve never understood
the celebration of slaughter. In his A
History of the World Andrew Marr tells us that “The Muslims wrecked many of
the glories of Hindu civilization, smashing old temples and art, Just as
Protestant destroyed monasteries and Catholic religious art” (331). In her Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen Nancy Ross says,
“There are a number of explanations for the final complete decline of Buddhism
in the land of its birth... the arrival on the Indian scene of invading Muslim
peoples who, out of their fixed fanatical belief in Allah as the one and only
God, made ruthless attacks on Buddhist schools, monasteries, shrines and works
of art” (129). That behavior continues today as is illustrated by the
destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban and 105 students killed in
the bombing of a girls’ school by the Taliban. This is how a Jewish ideology
turns people into monsters.
Hannah Arendt and the Origins
of Anti-Semitism
In
the opening of her The Origins of
Totalitarianism she says “Antisemitism, a secular nineteenth-century
ideology—which in name, though not in argument, was unknown before the 1870’s”
(xiii). If anti-Semitism means hatred of Jews, it has been around since ancient
times. It may go back as far as the so-called Jewish exodus. Most likely, the
Jews did not escape from Egypt but were driven out. Freud says in Moses and Monotheism that “After the
supremacy of Egypt had collapsed, hordes of warlike Aramaeans had flooded the
country, conquering and pillaging, and thus had shown where a capable people
could seize new land.... They are called Habiru” (33). The Jews exhibited the
same behavior when they invaded Canaan. In the Old Testament the behavior and
thinking of the Jews give no reason why they would not be hated. Even in the
New Testament the behavior of the Jewish leadership such as the Sadducees and Pharisees
is impossible to like. Jesus stands out because he is so different from the
members of the Jewish religious hierarchy.
Important
here is that the ideologues were a different breed of men than the common
people. They could stir up hatred and fanaticism among the people, just as the
Communist leadership and Hitler did, but ordinary people mostly only want to be
allowed to work and raise their families. Throughout history, leadership bring
calamity upon people. Jerusalem suffered greatly from war throughout ancient
times, perhaps because of its location. Morton Smith tells us in Hellenism and the Rise of Rome that
Jerusalem... was taken a dozen times between 332 and 177 by Greek armies and
presumably had a Greek garrison through the whole period” (251). The Romans
would be next. Before the Greeks it was the Assyrians and Babylonians. Wikipedia says, “During its long
history, Jerusalem has been attacked 52 times, captured and recaptured 44
times, besieged 23 times, and destroyed twice” (“History of Jerusalem”).
In
ancient times these were primarily wars of conquest or just a love of war, but
they were driven by war-loving leadership. Yet in Homer’s story of the Trojan
War there are anti-war elements. When the Trojan War began, the wise Odysseus
tried to avoid participating in the war by feigning lunacy. As a result of his
fighting in the war, his homeland deteriorated through neglect. A lesson America should have learned after World War II. Even the great
Achilles was disguised as a girl to avoid being drafted into the war that would
kill him. The ancient Greeks were warriors out of necessity in a militant world
but also understood the cost of war, which would eventually destroy the flower
of Greek civilization—Athens. They loved life more than they loved war, which
is true for most ordinary people, but not for their ever-greedy, ever foolish leadership.
Yet, as if there wasn’t enough to fight about, Jewish ideologies gave another
reason and justification for warfare. What makes these ideologies especially heinous
is that they sanctify the most horrific activity engaged in by men. Yet, all
the Jewish ideologies advocate war—with the exception of Jesus’ spiritual
philosophy of peace, which was militarized by his followers. What lunacy to go
to war over an idea, though the idea was often a cover for greed, conquest, and
will to power.
The Boomerang Effect of the Jewish
Ideology
“Judeophobia (fear of Jews) date back to
ancient times.” I wonder why. The Jews created an ideology that said everyone
but Jews are an abomination in God’s eyes. Of course, as Nietzsche points out
in the Antichrist, resentment gave
birth to that fantasy. The Jews were surrounded by great civilizations such as
Egypt and they were jealous and resentful. The pagans were more creative and
productive than the Jews—even in their attitude toward others. Jews were never
hated by pagans because of their religion but because of their behavior—ditto
that for the Christians in Rome. They tolerated the Jews hate-filled ideology.
What the pagans didn’t understand that the psychologist Nietzsche did is that
Judaism was born out of hatred and that ideology determine the behavior and
thinking of the Jews.
What
was the attitude of pagans toward the Jews? Not as bad as the Jews attitude
toward pagans. What the pagans lacked was a religious ideology of hatred.
Whereas priests played a central role in the lives of the Jews, their role was
secondary among Greeks and Romans. They didn’t tell people what to think or how
to behave. The role of the pagan priest was to preside over sacrifices,
rituals, and religious festivals. Edith Hamilton says in The Greek Way that “The Greeks had no authoritative Sacred Book, no
creed, no ten commandments, no dogma. The very idea of orthodoxy was unknown to
them” (216). “In Greece there was no dominating church or creed” (217). In
other words, no oppressive, dominating, totalitarian, hateful religious
ideology. Unlike Yahweh, the Greek gods were “jovial company” who banqueted
“making heaven shake with their shouts o inextinguishable laughter” (215). This
reminds one of the Golden Calf party shut down by Moses, with participants
slaughtered.
Russian-born
Israeli scholar Victor Tcherikover his Hellenistic
Civilization and the Jews examines some of the origins of anti-Semitism. He
begins by saying that pagan anti-Semites “regarded the [Jewish] rejection of
idols as the rejection of the gods altogether” resulting in the Jews being “accused
of the offense of ‘atheism’” (364). One understands that a monotheist would not
want to worship other gods. What is difficult to understand is the notion that
one’s God (Yahweh/Allah) would hate people who worship all gods as if that is
some great evil. This just shows how self-centered, narcissistic, egotistical,
egocentric, egomaniacal, pompous, prideful, selfish, conceited, grandstanding,
haughty, snobbish, vainglorious, aloof, inflated, self-absorbed, self-centered,
self-serving, self-infatuated, self-obsessed, self-preoccupied, and puffed up
the Jewish God is. Such an obsession that fuels hatred is hardly godly. Of
course, it isn’t godly. Such a God is the product of resentment. Of course,
inflating their God was the Jews way to inflate their own significance, the
very reason Christians and Muhammad adopted Judaism: self-inflation.
Another
“charge leveled against the Jews [was] misanthropy, misoxenia, meaning hatred of mankind, loathing of strangers, or amixia, unwillingness to merge with
others” (367). He says that the courtiers of Antiochus Sidetes advised him to
“exterminate the Jews completely, arguing that they alone of all the peoples
refused to come into contact with other peoples and regarded all of them as
enemies” (368). We’ve seen that the accusation was accurate. The cause of the
mindset was the Jewish religious ideology. The Jewish mindset toward pagans was
“Touch me not, lest I be contaminated!” (368). Really, is it surprising that
such an attitude would inspire similar attitude in response?
“What
impelled the Greeks to oppose the Jews? National hatred in the modern sense did
not exist in the ancient world, and much less religious hatred” (372). That is,
until the Jews came along with their religious ideology of hatred. “Greeks were
familiar with many foreigners from abroad who had settled in their cities, but
had found no need to carry on a violent attack against them. Why did they hate the
Jews of all people?” (372). Tcherikover indicates that the Jews weren’t
oppressed or discriminated against, at least no more than any other people. Jews
“enjoyed numerous privileges yet were exempt from duties.... Hellenistic
kingdoms, with their variegated basis for diverse peoples, juridical principles
and faiths, were ready to welcome the Jews as an additional element among those
already to be found in the state” (373).
But
there was a caveat: “as long as the strangers are not numerous and live
unobtrusively, without making demands and claims, there is no special reason
for hating them, and the ‘host people’ may even accorded them courtesy and
recognition” (372). Yet, the Jews bought with them an ideology of hatred that
also made demands on the host people. This was also true for Judeo-Christians
in Rome. “The Jews required that they should not be force to desecrate the
Sabbath that they be exempted from military service and from the associated
taxes... and that they be permitted to collect money and send it to Jerusalem.
The last privilege in particular was apt to arouse the anger of the Greeks, for
the Greek cities were generally in need of money and could not reconcile
themselves with the fact that part of the inhabitants should be legally exempt
from liturgies ["city-taxes"] although they possessed the means” (373). Conclusion: “They
could not be good citizens even if they wished to be, because religion sundered
them from the Greeks” (374).
Yet,
it’s not surprising that in Greek cities that the Jews would be attacked. From
Martin Hengel’s Jews, Greeks and
Barbarians: on ancient antisemitism: Apollonius Molon expresses an aspect
of the antisemitism calling “the Jews atheoi
and misanthropoe—because of their way
of life in the Greek cities—but claims that they are the ‘the most stupid of
the barbarians’” having failed “to produce ‘a single invention which is of any
use for living...’” (80). “According to Acts 16.20f., the charge was made
against Paul and Silas in the Roman colony of Philippi that ‘These men are Jews
and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs which it is not lawful
for us Romans to accept or practice’” (80). What Paul and other Christian Jews accomplished
was to introduce an alien ideology into Roman Empire that would, according to Catherine
Nixey’s The Darkening Age would
destroy classical civilization. To reiterate, Charles Freeman says in The Closing of the Western Mind, “the Greek intellectual tradition
was suppressed rather than simply faded away” (340). It was suppressed once a
Jewish ideology took control of the empire’s leadership, when Christianity was
adopted by Roman Emperor Constantine. That antagonism between Jews and gentiles
has a long history.
Judeo-Islam Contra the People
of the Book
Islam
comes after Judeo-Christianity. Muhammad adopted the Jewish ideology’s declaration
that pagans are an anathema to God. Yahweh became Allah. But Muhammad added
Judeo-Christians and Jews to those who were an anathema to God. He gave the
Jews in Arabia three choices: death, emigration, or conversion. As a result,
Jews were in one way or another cleansed from Arabia. At least Muhammad was
kind enough not to require circumcision. Paul had discarded circumcision as a
requirement to convert to his neo-Judaism, Christianity; otherwise, his
converts would have been only women. It really is silly to require bodily
mutilations as a religious requirement. (It’s not surprising that the old-time
Judaism never became popular.) To my point, the Jewish ideology created for the
Jews (and everyone else for that matter) a new hostile, formidable enemy that
did not exist before: Judeo-Islam.
Judeo-Christianity and the
Killers of Christ
The
world would have been better off if Jesus had been left alone to preach his
gospel. But the intolerant Jews wouldn’t allow that, so had him crucified. Let’s
forget the deicide issue because the idea is a contradiction, though logic
didn’t matter to Christians then or now. What would impact Jews was their
religious intolerance being passed on to Judeo-Christians who, as a result,
were intolerant of people who would not accept Jesus Christ as their savior
along with the notion that Christ = God. The intolerance inherited by Muslims
was the violent condemnation of those (Jews in particular) who would not accept
Muhammad as God’s final prophet. One can see here how three versions of Judaism
created hatred among those who adopted one of the versions or none of them.
Jews inflame the entire world in a destructive game of religious hatred, and
they were at the center. They created enemies where there had been none before:
enemies created from ideology. Ideologies of hatred do that, and the most
infamous are Jewish: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism, neoconservatism,
and the neo-Marxism presently plaguing America.
Shakespeare’s The Merchant of
Venice
We
see the resulting harmful effect of the Jewish ideologies in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. Here is what
Shylock the Jewish moneylender says when the Brit Bassanio invites him to
dinner: “Yes, to smell pork; to eat of the habitation which your prophet the
Nazarite conjured the devil into. I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with
you, walk with you, and so following: but I will not eat with you, drink with
you, nor pray with you” (1.3.29-34). So he’ll do business with gentiles but won’t
be their friends. His ideology won’t allow it. Again: “This kindness will I show....
If you repay me not on such a day let the forfeit be agreed for a full pound of
your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken from whatever part of your body I
choose” (1.3.140-149). What is being expressed here is the Jew’s hatred of the gentile. It would be hard to believe had we not read the Old Testament.
Finally, again about dinner. “I am bid forth to supper, Jessica [his daughter].
I am not bid for love: they flatter me. But yet I’ll go in hate, to feed upon
the prodigal Christian” (2.5.9-15). Hate doesn’t breed love but hatred. Why
would gentiles love a man who hates them? Who even condemns the God they
worship—the Nazarite?
Like I said, the Jews have always been better at creating enemies than making friends.
Of
interest here is Shylock’s punishment—that he becomes a Christian immediately.
Shylock agrees but is a shattered man. And rightly so. The punishment is
especially cruel, though the Christian audience would not have seen it that way. But when
one considers all the pagans who were forced to convert to Christianity and
Islam, the cruelty becomes apparent. It is the negation of a person’s identity.
In a sense, it is a death sentence for a crime that does not deserve death
since no one suffered physically. Yes, an eye for an eye, but that is not the
case here. Yet, death by conversion was invented by the Jews, who engaged in
force conversion and even forced circumcision. F.E. Peters says in The Harvest o Hellenism that during his
conquests John Hyrcanus “revealed his new policy, the forced conversion of the
Idumaeans to Judaism, the token of which was compulsory circumcision”
(286-281). Judah the Maccabee “was aggressively expansionist and carried the
undisguised wars of conquest northward against the Ituraean Arab in Galilee. As
earlier in Idumaea, the inhabitants of Galilee were offered a choice between
circumcision and emigration” (291). Thus, though cruel perhaps the punishment was
just. Shylock will suffer the same conversion that his people’s religious
ideology caused to be imposed on endless millions of pagans.
Marxism: Another Us-versus-Them
Ideology
First
of all, have you noticed that the Jewish ideologies just discussed are
proletariat in spirit and motivation? As Nietzsche says, they are the product
of resentment. In the modern era another
Jewish prophet, this time a secular one, emerged with an ideology from hell:
Karl Marx. Bloody stages of Judaism. (1) Slaughter of the Canaanites. (2)
Judeo-Christians’ assault on the pagans of the Greco-Roman empire as described
by Catherine Nixey. (3) Judeo-Islam conquests and slaughter as described by numerous
historians. (4) And now Marxism. Like the other Jewish ideologies it embodies an
us-versus-them scenario. Yet, the truly bad guys—like corporate management—are
a minority. The vast majority are just ordinary people trying to make a living
for their families but are declared evil because they refuse to become members
of the Marxist club. It’s the same old story: Jews versus pagans;
Judeo-Christians versus pagans, Jews, and later on Muslims; and Judeo-Muslims
versus pagans, Jews, and Christians, and all against heretics within the fold.
The Communist Manifesto
Marxism is an us-versus-them Jewish ideology that calls for conquest, the overcoming of all non-Communists. Some would argue that the Manifesto wasn’t only Jewish because
Frederick Engels helped to write it. Wikipedia, however, says, “Although Engels is credited as co-writer, the final draft
was penned exclusively by Marx. From the 26 January letter, Laski infers that
even the Communist League considered Marx to be the sole draftsman and that he
was merely their agent, imminently replaceable. Further, Engels himself wrote
in 1883: ‘The basic thought running through the Manifesto [...] belongs solely
and exclusively to Marx’” (“The Communist Manifesto”). And in the preface to
the English edition of 1888 Engels says, “The Manifesto being our joint
production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition,
which forms its nucleus, belongs to Marx” (Economic
and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Karl Marx 206). Thus, Communism is a Jewish ideology as the
text itself reveals. And like all the other Jewish ideologies: one man decides
for all men. Be that man Moses, Paul, Muhammad, or Marx.
Jesus was an exception. In the story of Jesus and the young rich man or ruler, Jesus allows the man to decide whether he wants to join Jesus' club, which would require giving up his wealth. "At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth" (Gospel of Mark 10:17–31). The rich man was allowed to walk away. How different from Marxism, which would demand the rich man be killed for refusing to give up his wealth to become a proletariat Bolshevik.
Marx
begins, “A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism” (208). So true!
A specter that would cause the deaths of millions of innocent people and
imprison millions more in terrifying totalitarian regimes. Marx’s mindset
reflects that of all of the Jewish ideologies: “oppressor and oppressed, stood
in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden,
now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary
reconstruction of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending
class” (209). From the very beginning Jews saw life as a war. And all human
beings belonged to one army or the other. Never mind all the accomplishments,
all the love and goodness that have been part of life. And always, the need for
revolution that requires the destruction of the other—men, women, and children
so that the Jewish utopia—be it that of Judaism, Judeo-Christianity,
Judeo-Islam, or Marxism—can be created from the carnage.
Earlier
it was Jew versus pagan, then Christian versus pagan and Jew, then Islam versus
pagan, Jew, and Christian, each against all others. Now Marx tells us, “Society
as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two
great classes directly facing each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat” (210).
“The bourgeoisie... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than
naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’” How ironic to hear a Jew
decry “cash payment.” Hannah Arendt says in The
Origins of Totalitarianism that about 1871 “a majority of the Berlin
bankers of the time were Jews” (37). Money lending has been a part of Jewish
culture since ancient times. In The Jews
of Arab Lands Norman Stillman says, “In early Abbasid times... the rapidly
expanding commerce necessitated the development of banking, a profession in
which Jews were prominently represented as well” (34). And according to Robert
Tucker even Marx “describes Judaism or commerce as a religion in which money is
god: ‘What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering’”
(Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx
111).
And
one can't help but recall Judas and Shylock. One wonders to what degree Marx’s
condemnation of those involved in the money game inflamed hatred toward the
Jewish themselves, even turned Communist Jews against bourgeois Jews—along with
anyone who is in the business of making money to succeed in life, to raise a
family, to enable one’s children to succeed better than their parents had. To
Marx making money is a sin. One must not serve money but serve the State, which
will dispense money taken from the worker as it sees fit. The controllers of
the State become masters and workers become their slaves and who, like American
slaves, will not be allowed private property. And let’s be clear about one
thing. The program was never about serving God or serving the State but always
about serving an ideology. Marx reminds one of Moses’ condemnation of a man
collecting wood on the Sabbath in order to provide food and heat for his
family.
Marx
says that “cash payment” “has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious
fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm” (211). Such an atheistic hypocrite! His
enslavement of humanity to an ideology was infinitely worse than the “cash
payment.” His ideology would turn humanity into robots, the proletariat no
longer working for cash but for the deified State. All kinds of people work for cash:
farmers, technicians, mechanics, waiters, writers, fishermen, salesmen,
doctors, electricians, etc. Under communist rule uniqueness disappears: all are
workers for the State. He complains that the “bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly
revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of
production, and with them the while relations of society” (212). Yes, it’s also
called progress. Making everything affordable to everyone.
And
the old cultures need not disappear. The old faiths need not disappear. And
labor becomes more interesting and less demanding. Farmers use tractors and
plows rather than a horse and plow. I fall into the low income bracket in the
U.S. yet I have a car, house, TV, and computer. I have plenty to eat. True,
luxuries are out of my range, yet on YouTube I can listen to all sorts of
music, watch all sorts of movies, watch newscasts, and attend lectures on
science, history, philosophy, and art. And I can buy used books on Amazon.com.
And though I’m not a fan of Amazon because it is a destructive force culturally
and economically, I don’t want a revolution, simply restrictions on the
corporation to make it less destructive. I don’t believe Amazon’s employees are
proletariat slaves. Though perhaps they could be better treated, they are
better off than the proletariat slaves of Communist China and North Korea.
Capitalistic
societies have improved without Communism, without Marxism. Marxist ideology is
not needed to allow socialist elements such as government supported minimum
wage, education, retirement, medical care, and unemployment benefits to improve
the quality of life of citizens. The super-wealthy should pay high taxes, but
the existence of such people does not require rioting and burning small
businesses. It’s Marx who makes revolution all about money—“cash payment.” I’ve always
worked for wages, which are the same thing. And I always worked to improve my
wages, and they improved. I prefer wages to bloody revolution. I prefer working
for wages to being a slave in a Communist country. And I certainly prefer
working for wages to not working and living parasitically off state as if I
were an invalid, though I believe the aged and invalid morally deserve to be
supported by the rest of us if they are destitute. Jesus wasn’t a big fan of
businessmen, but he didn’t want them murdered. And he certainly wouldn’t
believe that serving the false god of the State would be an improvement.
Marx
says, “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all,
even the most barbarian, nations into civilization.” Incredibly this is a
criticism. “The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery” (213).
Better those commodities be unaffordable? And why are the barbarians flooding
into Western capitalist nations? They want progress. They want civilization.
They want economic opportunity. He says that the bourgeoisie “has thus rescued
a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life” (213). I
would think intelligence and education would be preferred to idiocy. Yet, what
a snob to equate idiocy with rural life, about which he knew nothing. The
Romantic Movement, which occurred simultaneously with Marx, saw country life
differently and offered an understanding the effects of industrialism (and even oppressive, greedy landlords) on the
individual and families and on nature that was far more profound and humane than
Marxism. No wonder the urban proletariat of Russia had to slaughter the peasants who
didn’t want Marxist Communism destroying their way of life.
“The
bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more
massive and more colossal productive forces than have all the preceding
generations together. Subjection of nature’s forces to man, machinery,
application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation,
railways, electric telegraphs, clearing whole continents for cultivation,
canalization of rivers...” (214). Yet he would do away with the bourgeoisie.
One must only compare humanity’s inability to respond to the Black Death (a
bacterial plague) that hit Europe in 1347 and claimed 200 million lives in just
four years to its ability to respond to the COVID-19 virus. Capitalistic corporations quickly produced vaccines and other technologies to combat the virus. Today, several
classes of antibiotics are effective in treating the various forms of the
plague. These scientific improvements were the work of bourgeois scientists.
He
complains that with capitalism “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their
train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away. All
that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned...” (212). What he
describes is what occurs with Communism, not capitalism. Capitalistic
technology and economics do introduce new ways of living but do not demand the
destruction of the old ways. That is what Marx demands. That is what Communism
demands. And that is what Jewish ideologies—Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam—have always demanded. Away with the pagan, away with Western civilization,
which is essentially Greco-Roman, not Egyptian, not Persian, not Babylonian,
not Indian, not Chinese, but away with them as well. And certainly not Hebrew. Western
Civilization’s roots are Western as the term indicates, not Eastern. Those
roots were corrupted by the Jewish ideology which replaced reason with
superstition. All that is solid (distinct cultures) has melted into air as a
result of Judaism’s offspring: Christianity, Islam, and Marxism.
So
Marx concludes after reviewing the successes of bourgeois civilization that “it
becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling
class... [and that] Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie; in other
words, its existence is no longer compatible” (221). Thus it must be
exterminated just as the pagans were exterminated. And infamous communist
leaders such as Joseph-Stalin,
Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel-Castro,
Kim Jong-un, and China's present Communist leadership shall replace the
bourgeoisie. Thus, “The immediate aim of the communists: formation of the
proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of
political power by the proletariat” (223). Conquest of the other (always very
bloody) is the central theme of all the Jewish ideologies.
“The
distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally,
but the abolition of bourgeois property” (223). In other words, “In the single
sentence: Abolition of private property. Is owning nothing but one’s toothpaste and toothbrush really utopian? I see a moral contradiction: serving the
people by confiscating their property. Perhaps Prophet Marx’s most terrifying
declaration that would be imposed upon millions of individuals is this: “The
abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois
freedom is undoubtedly aimed at” (225). Who are the bourgeoisie? People who
fall into the middle class, own property, traditional, conservative, and work
hard to become financially successful. In her biography Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Harriet Jacobs describes that
the suppressing of individuality and banning of private property were
conditions of the slave: “according to Southern laws, a slave, being property, can hold no property” (8). In fact, life in a communist society is
similar to that on an American slave plantation.
Ralph Rubio, a
Capitalistic Success Story
Take
Ralph Rubio as an example of what freedom, individualism, and initiative can
achieve in a capitalistic society. He created Rubio's Coastal Grill, a popular Mexican food restaurant
that makes $188.9 million a year and employs 4000 employees. Young “Rubio amassed
restaurant experience as a busser, waiter, and manager at chains like The Old
Spaghetti Factory, Hungry Hunter, and Harbor House. Eventually his dad, Ray
(who immigrated to San Diego as a teen, took a job sweeping floors at a
plastics factory, and eventually became one of the top plastics industry
consultants in the country) offered to give Ralph $70,000 to start his ‘fish
taco idea’” (“Ralph Rubio Is the Fish Taco King,” San Diego Magazine). Ralph and Ray are members of the bourgeoisie.
There have been thousands if not millions of Ralphs and Rays in America, and
most likely not even a pair in the Soviet Union, Marx’s utopian paradise. Two
things are most important about Ralph Rubio. First, his life illustrates how in
a free, Democratic, capitalistic society person can achieve self-realization,
how an individual can become what he or she personally aspires to become.
Second is how Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill (the first and to me the better name) benefited in a unique way millions of people. I’ve eaten endless times at Original
Rubio's on Mission Bay Drive in San Diego, pictured on Wikipedia. His is an achievement impossible in Marx’s Communist State
because it requires freedom, individuality, and personal initiative. The Ralphs
and Rays are what make America so colorful, an endless variety of personal
achievement, each a unique color. Such variety is absent in Communist nations.
If we were to color the Soviet Union it would be in shades of gray splattered
with red. Marx gave nothing to humanity other than a dismal, oppressive, blood
splattered ideology.
Back to Dismal Marx
Perhaps
most bizarre is what Marx says about the Bourgeois and the family, which he
would like to see vanish: “The bourgeois claptrap about the family and
education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the
most disgusting, the more, by the action of modern industry, all family ties
among the proletarians are torn asunder and their children transformed into
simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor” (227). Children were
always instruments of labor, and in the Communist state EVERYONE (except the politburo) is an
instrument of labor. What changed was the rise of industrial production: the
factory. And it was usually bourgeois men who improved working condition:
“Changes
came in 1833 when the Factory Act was passed. The Act not only created the post
of factory inspector, but also made it illegal for textile factories to employ
children less than 9 years of age. The Act came at a time when reformers like
Richard Oastler were publicising the terrible working conditions of children,
comparing the plight of child labourers to that of slaves. The timing was
significant: slavery was abolished in the British empire in 1833-4” (“Child
labour” online). Richard Oastler was the son of Robert Oastler, a bourgeois linen
merchant.
Frederick
Engels was a business man. He wrote an important and quite moving exposé titled
The Condition of the Working Class in
England. Perhaps the best known is the wealthy bourgeois businessman Robert
Owen: “The pioneering work of Robert Owen, a Welsh radical, at New Lanark in
Scotland, is sometimes credited as being the birth of British Socialism. He
stopped employing Children under the age of 10, and instead arranged for their education,
and improved the working and living conditions of all his workers. He also
lobbied Parliament over child labour, and helped to create the co-operative
movement, before attempting to create a utopian community at New Harmony.”
Owen
preceded Marx, and like Jesus he believed what was needed was a revolution in
morality, not a bloody political revolution. Important here is the difference
between problem-centered socialism and Marxist revolutionary socialism. The one
has the government play a role in addressing specific social problems and
ensuring that essential services such as education and medical care are
available to all citizens; the other seeks the cleansing of the old culture and
the creation of a new culture based on an ideology. The former has produced
nations such as Great Britain, France, Sweden, and Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands,
and New Zealand. The latter produced the Soviet Union, Communist China,
Communist Cuba, and North Korea.
Marx
says, “The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production.... Our
bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarian
at their disposal... take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other wives”
(227-228). He should know given he used Helene Demuth as a housekeeper and got
her pregnant. Marx's wife the beautiful Jenny von Westphalen had been on a trip
abroad nine months prior to the birth. After Marx’s death, Demuth moved to
Engels's home, where she ran the household. These two communists had no
reservations about using women to perform domestic labor. The truth is
bourgeois men do not see their wives as mere instruments of production.
Marx
blames the bourgeois for the vanishing of countries and nationality. Yet adds
that “The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster” (228).
This is reminiscent of the other Jewish ideologies. 1. Judaism wanting to put
an end to paganism or at least subdue it to Judaism: “All nations shall come to
your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (Isaiah 60:3). 2.
Judeo-Christianity: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20).
Judeo-Islam: The Quran is a declaration of war upon humanity. Its goal is to
transform global society into a theological monoculture with the entire population
submitted to the will of Allah. Islam
is from Arabic, meaning surrender to God. Muslim
is from the Arabic meaning one who surrenders. No two worldviews are more
similar than Marxism and Muhammadanism. Both represent the destruction of the
individual. Industrialism may have transformed workers in physical robots. But Marxism
and Muhammadanism transform them into mental robots by programming the minds of
their followers. Animals have more freedom than do Bolsheviks and Muslims. And
the variety of animals and their cultures is endless. That's what makes the
animal and plant kingdoms so wonderful and beautiful as opposed to Marxist and
Islamic monocultures. Boring sameness is their distinctive feature.
Marx’s to do list (Manifesto
230-231):
1.
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public
purposes.
2.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Perhaps not a bad idea in the age
of individuals worth many billions of dollars. In part because we’ve discovered
that the super-rich are very often like Marx: revolutionaries who want to
control and to transform society. And they have the money to fund their
revolutions.
3.
Abolition of all right of inheritance. That's consistent with the State owning
all property and individuals owning none.
4.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Few emigrants who
come to America have property. That's why they come to America. Confiscating the property of rebels would be a
way of keeping critics silent.
5.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the state. No more credit unions or local independent banks.
6.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the
state. The centralization of communication in America has almost been achieved.
(Certainly true today given leftist media now dominate public discourse.) Next
will be the elimination of automobiles. Here is the ideal: in the mid-1970s,
only 0.8 percent of the Soviet population owned a car. That is the mission of
Biden-Harris Green New Deal: to Sovietize America.
7.
Extension of factories and instruments of production own by the state. We’ve
seen how well that worked in the Soviet Union which made nothing anyone wanted to
buy, not even Soviets. Russia hasn’t recovered.
8.
Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. So much for the
independent American farmer.
9.
Gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
equable distribution of the population over the country. Like the forced
transfer of various groups from the 1930s up to the 1950s ordered by Joseph
Stalin, in some cases to fill ethnically cleansed territories. “Soviet archives
documented 390,000 deaths during kulak [peasants with over 8 acres of land,
i.e., private property] forced resettlement and up to 400,000 deaths of persons
deported to forced settlements during the 1940s; however, Nicolas Werth places
overall deaths closer to some 1 to 1.5 million perishing as a result of the
deportations” (“Population transfer in the Soviet Union,” Wikipedia). Marx never said the road to his utopia would be easy.
He didn’t want it to be. He was a revolutionary. Besides, like the wealthy left of Hollywood and big-tech corporations such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, it wasn’t a road he would have to travel.
Finally,
“Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the
existing social and political order of things” (Manifesto 243). Thus like Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, and
Judeo-Islam, the revolutionary intention of Marxism was global. Another Jewish
ideology that sought to transform humanity to fit is its idea of how humans
should live and think.
Body Count
It’s
unclear whether Marxism’s body count exceeded that of the other Jewish
ideologies. If not, it must have come close because it had the advantage of
murderous modern technology.
Stalin: “the second most lethal mass
killer of modern times. (The first is Mao, the third, Hitler)” (Marr 469). J.M.
Roberts say, “In a new civil war millions of [Russian] peasants were killed or
transported, and grain levies brought back famine....The price in suffering was
enormous. The enforcement of collectivization was only made possible by
brutality on a scale far greater than anything seen under the tsars and it made
Russia a totalitarian state” (History of
the World 727).The first two are monstrous creations of the Jewish ideology;
the third became a monster because he considered Marxism as a threat to his
homeland. Let’s face it; it was. One of the characteristics of Marxism, like
Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Islam, is its assault on other peoples' cultures. It seeks to erase old cultures and replace them with one created from an ideology.
Mao: “Mao’s land seizures and
political purges in the early 1950s killed up to three million people....”
Mao’s gulag system “may well have killed twenty-seven million.” His Great Leap
Forward killed an estimated thirty-eight million people.... Mao showed
absolutely no pity or even much interest” (Marr 537-538). This is the mindset
of an ideologue. If the ideology demands death, then so be it without pity.
This is reminiscing of Jewish conquests described in Old Testament—no pity,
just death.
Ilya
Somin says that “Collectively, communist states killed as many as 100 million
people, more than all other repressive regimes combined during the same time
period” (“Lessons from a century of communism”). The number of dead
individuals, yes individuals with unique lives, hopes, fears, ambitions, loves,
and so on, is fucking staggering and fucking sickening.
From Marxism: the View from America: reflecting on the Communists’ “deep sense of mission” and on whether Marxism is
a religion or ideology, Clinton Rossiter says, “Where else but from Marxism
could they get the confidence, zeal, and energy that drive them relentlessly to
foment revolution in fifty or more countries around the world?” (258). Clearly,
Marxism is a secular religion in which superficially the State has replaced
God. Yet, in all the Jewish ideologies the true object of worship is the
ideology.
Why Hitler’s Hatred of the
Jews?
As noted above, John
Toland says in his biography Adolf Hitler
that Hitler’s “simmering hatred of Jews had been activated by what he himself
had witnessed on the streets of Munich. Everywhere Jews in power: first Eisner
[who organized the Socialist Revolution that overthrew the monarchy in Bavaria
(1918)], then anarchists like Toller, and finally Russian Reds like Levine. In
Berlin it had been Rosa Luxemburg; in Budapest Bela Kun, in Moscow Trotsky,
Zinoviev and Kamenev. The conspiracy Hitler had previous suspected was turning
into a reality” (vol. I, 88).
Andrew
Marr says, “It is likely, however, that Hitler’s loathing of the Jews really
began shortly after Germany’s defeat in 1918, when he returned with his
regiment, as a highly decorated corporal, to Munich.... Over the winter and
early spring of 1918-19, anarchists and Communists established a revolutionary
‘Red Republic’ in Bavaria mimicking the Bolshevik seizure of power in
Russia.... Many of its leaders had been Jewish” (477). And “By the early 1920s
Germany seemed to many to be on the edge of Communist revolution” (478).
“Hitler equates Bolshevik Communism and Jews, but also finds the Jews pulling
the strings of its apparent enemy, international capitalism” (475). It's amazing
that Jews have thrived in capitalist America but hate the country because it is
capitalist. They never could free themselves from Marxist ideology. It seems
Jews always need an enemy, even among those who allow them to thrive. America
is simply a replay of the Jews hatred of Egyptians in ancient times. Today the
pagan Egyptians are replaced by bourgeois Americans.
The Jews and Totalitarianism
As
already noted, Hannah Arendt says in The
Origins of Totalitarianism, “Antisemitism, a secular nineteenth-century
ideology—which in name, though not in argument, was unknown before the 1870’s”
(xiii). And her discussion of totalitarianism focuses on the Soviet Union and
Nazi Germany. So for her, totalitarianism is a modern phenomenon. Clinton
Rossiter Marxism: the View from America
claims that Marx was not a totalitarian (really!) “for totalitarianism, it is
agreed, is very much an institutional and ideological phenomenon of the
twentieth century...” (244) Again, “I am not saying that he was totalitarian, for the breed did not exist until the 1920s” (254).
I
humbly disagree with these two eminent scholars. Judaism is the origin of
totalitarianism. As Rossiter suggests, totalitarianism is a step beyond the
common autocratic systems of government. The key difference is found in the
word total. A totalitarian regime
seeks to control not only behavior but also thought. Since the beginning of
civilization, dictatorships have existed in great numbers without an ideology. Its
methodology made the Catholic Church the first totalitarian institution. Yet,
its roots were Jewish ideology. The Old Testament describes how the priests
controlled both the behavior and thinking of the people. Those who thought
outside the ideological box were killed, as illustrated in stories of the Golden Calf and Korah, who rebelled against Moses. And of course the killing of the
heretic Jesus. Clearly, Islam is also a totalitarian religious/political system
based on Jewish ideology. Dictatorships were common in ancient times, but
totalitarianism was inconsistent with polytheism. Key here is that embedded in
monotheism is the demand that a single idea—forget about God for the moment—must
be adhered to. It is the oppression of an idea that characterizes
totalitarianism.
Forced
ideological indoctrination creates aberrant human beings by destroying their
humanity rooted in freedom, in particular, freedom of thought. Jesus respected that which makes people human by
allowing them to choose for themselves what to believe. This attitude is what
makes Jesus an existentialist rather than a totalitarian. His view is
consistent with Jean-Paul Sartre’s claim that humans are embodiments of
freedom. Thus, to deny them their freedom is to dehumanize them. Jesus
respected people’s right to choose. He wanted his disciples to use argumentation to convert people to Christianity, as Paul does, not to torment or threaten them into submission. He never
chooses for others, as did the Catholic Church and that other Judaism Islam
continues to do.
Neoconservatism: The Fifth
Jewish Ideology
In Taking the Fight to the Enemy: Neoconservatism and the Age of Ideology, Adam
Fuller provides a list of “the first generation of neoconservatives”: “Irving
Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Daniel Bell, and
Nathan Glazer” (1). They are all Jewish. The title of Fuller's book is noteworthy because it identifies the defining characteristic of all Jewish ideologies: the presence of an enemy that must be destroyed.
Stephen Sniegoski: The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative
Agenda, war in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel
About the first
generation of neoconservatives Sniegoski says, “Most originated in New York,
and most were Jews” (25). According to Gal Beckerman, “[i]f there is an
intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim,
neoconservatism is it.” “Neoconservative Max Boot acknowledged that ‘support of
Israel’” had been and remained a ‘key tenet of neoconservatism.’” “In the
United States, it is sometimes taboo to say that the neoconservative are
primarily Jewish or that they are concerned about Israel” (26). Sniegoski says
that “the movement has been Jewish inspired, Jewish-oriented, and
Jewish-dominated” (28). “The original flagship of the neoconservative movement
was Commentary magazine, which is put
out by the American Jewish Committee” (26). Norman Podhoretz was the magazine’s
editor-in-chief for 25 years. President George W. Bush awarded him the
Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Adam Fuller: Taking the Fight to the Enemy:
Neoconservatism and the Age of Ideology.
“More than anyone
alive, perhaps, Irving Kristol can take credit for reversing the direction of
American political culture,” from the Jewish Marxist left to the Jewish
neoconservative right. Fuller provides a list of members of the first
generation of neoconservatives: “Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman
Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Daniel Bell, and Nathan Glazer” (1). Irving Kristol,
“grandfather of neoconservatism” (11) wrote a biographical article New York Times
Magazine titled “Memoirs of
a Trotskyist.” “It was during his time at City College that Kristol discovered
and adopted Leon Trotsky’s brand of socialism,” more accurately a Russian
Marxist revolutionary, political theorist and politician. Ideologically a
Communist.
Kristol met Gertrude
Himmelfarb at a “Trotskyist event,” and they married after graduation (13).
Kristol was drafted into the Army. Murry Friedman tells us that “Kristol found
that his fellow GIs were too easily inclined to rape, loot, and shoot
prisoners. [Only gentiles, of course.] He concluded that only army discipline kept them in check” (The Neoconservative Revolution 30). So there were two bad guys in Europe: the Nazis and the G.I.s. No good deed goes unpunished. Almost a third of a
million (291,557) American soldiers died fighting the fascists. American forces liberated concentration camps including Buchenwald,
Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbürg, Dachau, and Mauthausen. Just saying. Once he
shifted from left to right, Kristol sympathized with Joseph McCarthy’s
Committee on Un-American Activities because “He knew that the party actively
pursued a forceful overthrow of American’s government” (Fuller 15). Interestingly,
in Kristol we find two Jewish ideology seeking control of the U.S.
In New York and
Chicago there were “Trotskyists, Stalinists, and trade labor socialists.” Max
Schactman “promoted Trotskyism and as such, was a strong critic of capitalism,
a defender of revolution, and an opponent of America’s entry into World War II”
(Fuller 58-59). “New York Jewish Intellectuals of the twentieth century, whose
interest were the comprehensive study of man and who held predominately Marxist
ideologies” (73). And this from Maurice Isserman:
“When New York City Was the Capital of American Communism”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/new-york-american-communism.html
It’s interesting that so many Jews came to America as a safe
haven but hated the county nonetheless. They arrived with ideologies to
revolutionize American society according to their own personal vision of utopia.
What Americans wanted was unimportant. Ideological revolution was and is alien
to the American temper. Elliot Cohen
“was critically important to the first generation of neoconservatives.” He was
an “admirer of Trotsky” and had believed that “capitalism had run its course
and that communism was the only answer to the crisis confronting the country”
(Fuller 74-74). A country where the Jews arrived poor yet became incredibly successful—because
America was the land of opportunity. Sidney Hook had been a Marxist but then
became a neoconservative. It was he that coined the phrase that the United
States must be prepared to “take the fight to the enemy” (Fuller 97). Revealed here is
the Jews’ belief that they know best how to run other peoples’ countries in
which they are essentially guests. Their plan is always expressed in an
ideology, religious or secular. They have a savior mindset but their plans of
action have always done more harm than good.
The Jewish Neocons and the Iraq War
Stephen Sniegoski says
that “neoconservatives spearheaded the war on Iraq” (321). The Iraq War was neocon Jews' way of getting America to take
the fight to the Israel’s enemy. “Without the intensive neocon leadership, the
United Sates would not have launched a war on Iraq” (322). America was not
threatened by Saddam Hussein. “The fundamental justification for the war—the
WMD threat—was not true” (33). But Sniegoski notes that the neocons could not
have done it alone. First of all, President Bush ”being a veritable empty
vessel... could be easily converted to the neocon program” (322). “Bush’s
belief in a divine mission enabled him to pursue in an unwavering fashion the
neocon agenda.” Bush was a fanatical Christian who truly believed that he was on
a “mission from God” (323). Most important here is how a Jewish religious
ideology transformed Bush into a golem that could be manipulated by
Jews—neocons or Israelis. Here we have three Jewish ideologies (Judaism,
Christianity, and neoconservatism) working symbiotically to further the Jewish
agenda to protect Israel from an enemy created from Jewish ideology—Islam. Sniegoski
suggests that Bush has a “disregard for reality” (323). Of course! That is a
defining feature of all Jewish ideologies: Judaism, Judeo-Christianity,
Judeo-Islam, and Marxism. True believers live in an ideological bubble that
cuts them off from reality. They all exist in a make-believe parallel universe,
one that is more like a Resident Evil video game than Louis Armstrong’s “Wonderful
World.” And by the way, Armstrong came up from extreme poverty to become a
successful musician loved by whites, at least by those with a functioning brain
cell.
The Religious Sub-Text of Israel’s Attack
on the USS Liberty
Here I must bring
Lyndon B. Johnson, USS Liberty, and
the Vietnam War into the discussion. The nature of Israel’s loyalty to the U.S.
was made clear when the USS Liberty, a lightly armed auxiliary technical research ship, was attacked in
international waters by Israel’s air and naval forces. The Israeli forces
attacked with full knowledge that it was an American ship and then lied about
it. The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members. The Judaized U.S.
government under the disastrous leadership of President Lyndon Johnson kept the attack secret and had the
ship’s crew swear under oath not to speak of the incident for forty years. Of
course, Israel lied, saying the ship was attacked in error after being mistaken
for an Egyptian ship. What Johnson did is a good example of how Judaizing
benefits Jews.
They were able to influence Johnson to make illegal and immoral political
decisions because he had become thoroughly Judaized growing up in Bible-belt
Texas. Johnson’s family were Christadelphians, who believe the Jews are God's chosen people (they actually chose themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people), that
Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Kingdom of Israel would be restored as prophesized in the Bible. (There is no hope for humanity when people will
believe such invented nonsense.) Johnson was a member of the Disciples of
Christ. So Johnson lived in two worlds or histories—one factual and the other
mythological. And of course religious mythology influences the way humans think
thus the way they behave. For example, I assume Johnson thought of himself as
God’s Commander in Chief, as the Christian Roman emperors and European kings
did and like President Bush would when he became president. And certainly
Muslim leaders throughout the ages have thought of themselves in that way.
In other words, Jewish religious fictions have had as much or more
influence on factual history as has the combined influence of real entities
such as the wheel, plow, gunpowder, writing, and fossil-fuel engines.
Furthermore, the influence of religion (or ideologies generally) has been
primarily negative (in the case of the Abrahamic religions) and has increased
the destructive use of human inventions. It’s one thing to kill a man for his
money and another for what he thinks. When the factual reality of the Israeli
Jews attacking the USS Liberty occurred
Johnson’s response was influenced by his belief in the Jewish mythological/fictional
history, which says that Jesus will return to establish his earthly kingdom but
before that can occur a Jewish state had to be reestablished with Jerusalem as
its capital. It is truly amazing how stupid and unwise educated people can be!
That event occurred while Johnson was president. Since he was a
true-Judaized-believer he had to consider the establishment of the State of
Israel as fulfilling Biblical prophecy. At the time of the attack on the USS Liberty Israel was at war with Arab
nations who saw Israeli Jews as land-grabbers who, with the support of
Christian nations, had invaded and appropriated the homeland of the
Palestinians, just as they had done in Biblical times (and ironically as
Muslims had, beginning with the attack on Jerusalem in 637), though in Biblical
times the Palestinians were pagan Canaanites. In other words, to the Arabs what the Jews had done was only a factual event having no mythological
justification. Thus, from Johnson’s Biblical perspective the plight of the USS Liberty and its crew and the plight of
the Arabs were of little consequence. The Jews have to be protected at any cost
so that Biblical prophecy could be fulfilled. God’s Big History trumped
humanity’s petty concerns about justice and injustice, life and death.
It’s not surprising that LBJ would be all for fighting the threat of
godless communism in Vietnam. Though the population was Buddhist, the puppet
government installed by the U.S. was Catholic, Ngo Dinh Diem which
was better to him than Buddhism or Communism because it was Christian. So the U.S.
would go to war in Vietnam in order to return that country to its once colonial
keeper the French because “While French collaboration with Japan during WWII
had angered many officials in Washington, the post-war climate in Europe proved
decisive in the U.S. decision to support the reestablishment of French control
in Indochina” (Days of Decision by
Michael Nojeim and David Kilroy 119). So Americans had fought for their own
freedom and that of Europeans but were willing to fight to re-enslave the
Vietnamese to their previous colonial masters the French. However, our interest
here is that the Vietnam War was a conflict between two Jewish ideologies:
Marxism and Judeo-Christianity, with the Buddhists caught in the middle where
they would be slaughtered.
A Question Concerning
Jewish Loyalty
The attacks on USS Liberty and
Gaza raise the question of whether or not the Jews place self-benefit about all
else, even morality. Had Hitler not turned against the Jews who they have
served him against the Allies? German Jews served the Central Powers against
the Allies during World War I, which resulted in an “estimated 8.5 million
combatant deaths and 13 million civilian deaths as a direct result of the war”
(“World War I,” Wikipedia). I give
three notable examples of the Jews serving or wanting to serve as German
soldiers during the war. First is the German philosopher Karl Löwith. He was
“born to an assimilated German-Jewish family in Munich... Löwith volunteered
for World War I and was seriously wounded in the Italian campaign of 1915” (Martin Heidegger European Nihilism, Karl
Löwith 3). Second, “Freud’s initial response to World War I was patriotic, and
he closely followed the unfolding events of the war. Two of his sons
volunteered for duty in the Austrian army.” (“Sigmund Freud: Conflict &
Culture,” Library of Congress). Third, though Franz Kafka’s employer got him exempted
serving in the German military, he “later attempted to join the military but
was prevented from doing so by medical problems associated with tuberculosis” (“Franz
Kafka,” Wikipedia).
Wikipedia also tells us that “An
estimated 100,000 German Jewish military personnel served in the German Army
during World War I, of whom 12,000 were killed in action. The Iron Cross was
awarded to 18,000 German Jews during the war” (“German Jewish military
personnel of World War I”). So, German Jews patriotically served Germany during
World War I. The question that lingers is this: had Hitler not turned against
the Jews, would they have served him as they served the Kaiser? Given the historical
evidence, there is no reason to think they would not have served Hitler had doing
so benefitted them. Wikipedia says as
much: “For many German Jews, the war held the hope of being treated equal to
non-Jewish Germans for the first time. Many Jews also held strong patriotic
feelings for Germany and the belief that the war in the East against the
Russian Empire would bring the liberation of their fellow Eastern European Jews
from pogroms and persecution.”
The irony here is that had Hitler not turned against the Jews, they might
have built for him the atomic bomb. That may seem an exaggeration, but there
were Jews who became Nazis. Rudiger Safranski says in his book Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil,
“Even among the Jewish population—despite the boycott of Jewish businesses on
April 1 and the dismissal of Jewish public employees after April 7—there was a
good deal of enthusiastic support for the ‘national revolutions....’ In Kiel,
Felix Jacoby began his lecture on Horace in the summer of 1933 with the words: ‘
As a Jew I find myself in a difficult position. But as a historian I have long
learned not to view historical events from a private perspective. I have voted
for Adolf Hitler since 1927 and I am happy that in the year of the National
Rising I am allowed to lecture on Augustus. Because Augustus is the only figure
in world history that may be compared to Adolf Hitler.’” (230). Well, there is
also Genghis Khan. The so-called great philosopher Heidegger also became a Nazi
and by doing so betrayed philosophy and himself as a philosopher. A philosopher
who gives the Hitler salute is no philosopher. I don’t know what can be said of
Jews who did the same except I see no reason to believe they wouldn’t have help
Hitler to win his war.
Of course, non-Jewish Germans also served the evil German governments,
but the Hun never claimed to be God’s chosen people or to be the spiritual saviors
of humanity. They were repellent militarists. The lesson here is that Jews,
like those in the Old Testament, will do whatever is necessary to benefit
themselves.
Back to Bush and His
Armageddonites
Bush needed allies
to support his going to war not to protect America but as a divine mission. His
ideological troops were Christian evangelicals, whose numbers ranged from “40
to 80 million” (Sniegoski 325). They believed that “the establishment of Israel as a
Jewish state was tied in with Biblical eschatology.... a necessary prelude to
the second coming of Christ” (324). And being believers in Armageddon they
would welcome war of any kind a prelude to the Rapture. (Check out the 2009
Documentary Waiting for Armageddon.)
Of course, they were in fact troops in the thrall of Jewish ideologues—a
glowing-eyed horde of golems. It’s terribly disheartening that 2000 years after
the Judaisms’ destructing of Greek reason, most of humanity exists in the
thrall of the irrational—even in technologically and scientifically advanced
nations. The Jewish fifth column consisted of men like Joseph Lieberman and
Stephen Solarz, who in 1982 and 1986 “met with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
In 1998 he led a group of neoconservatives urging President Bill Clinton to
overthrow him” (“Solarz,” Wikipedia).
“To summarize, the
neocons were the driving force for war.... the original plan, promotion, and
initiation of the war on Iraq was mainly the work of neoconservatives. And it
was the neoconservatives who planned to expand the war beyond the borders of
Iraq” (331-332). I’m thinking Iran: “Podhoretz addressed the failure of the Bush administration to strike Iran.... It was revealing that Podhoritz’s penultimate paragraph* emphasized that an attack on Iran was essential to protect Israel and the Jewish people” even though “It can be wondered why Podhoretz would assume that Israel, possessed of something like 200 to 400 nuclear weapons, would have to depend on other states to prevent the extermination of its citizenry (Sniegoski 305).
*In “The Case for Bombing Iran, Commentary, June 2007, online.
Col. W. Patrick Lang lists others in his
article “Drinking the Kool-Aid” Neo-Conned
Again: “One underestimated talent of the neocon group in the run-up to this
war was its ability to manipulate Congress. They were masters of the game....
The old boy’s club—Abe Shulsky at OSP, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Middle East
Desk Officer at the NSC Elliot Abrams, Defense policy Board Chairman Richard
Perle” (272). That empty vessel Bush was no match for these guys. They were like Apostle Paul
and the disciples who overthrew Greco-Roman classical civilization—the
heart of Western civilization—armed only with a religious ideology. When it
comes to drinking ideological Kool-Aid brewed by Jews, most of humanity has
become intoxicated.
Still a trigger was
needed, and the 9-11 attacks provided that. “The 9-11 attacks made these
average American people angry and fearful” (Sniegoski 326). And certainly
Americans had a right to go into Afghanistan to hunt down and kill those
responsible. Playing on Americans’ fear, which weakens reason already weakened
by ideology, the Bush administration’s neocon propaganda convinced Americans
that “the United States had to strike Iraq before Iraq would somehow attack the
United States. In short, the neocon’s propaganda found fertile soil in America,
though it got virtually nowhere in the rest of the world” (327).
Iraq was not a threat
to America. The 9-11 attacks that killed 3,000 people were planned by a Saudi, Osama bin Laden, and carried out by 19
members of his Al-Qaeda group, fifteen of whom
were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was
from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. None from Iraq or even Afghanistan. As bad as
they are, the Taliban weren’t involved. Most likely they were kept in the dark
by the Saudi mastermind bin Laden. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. It was
Israel’s enemy, and that’s all that mattered to the neocons. Most disgusting is
the fact that Jews living in and benefitting from America would use a tragedy
such as the 9-11 attacks to further their protect-Israel at all costs agenda. America be
damned. Yet, America
remains Israel’s flunky: In 2016 former president Barack Obama signed an
agreement that would give Israel $38 billion in military aid over the decade
2017-2028. According to Matt Spetalnick
this was “the largest such aid package in U.S. history” (“U.S., Israel sign $38
billion military aid package,” Reuters).
Consequences Matter
“As of June 29,
2016, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were
4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952
wounded in action (WIA) as a result of the Iraq War” (“Casualties of the Iraq
War,” Wikipedia). The question that
always comes to my mind is how many dead American soldiers were Jews. In
addition, 182,272 to 204,5751 Iraqi civilians were killed (according to Costs
of War Project). And for what? Not to protect America. In fact, unlike Israel
America would be flooded by Islamic refugees. Did Iraq benefit? Today it ranks
3rd on the World Population
Review “Most Dangerous Countries in the World” list, and 162 (next to the
last Somalia) on Wikipedia’s “Global Peace Index. Then came ISIS. In Richard Engels pithy formulation: No Iraq war, no
ISIS. In his The Atlantic article “The
True Origins of ISIS,” Hassan Hassan suggests that "ISIS grew organically for at
least a decade before the U.S. invasion.” Still, the U.S. invasion removed the
only safety valve in the region preventing the rise of ISIS: Saddam Hussein.
Thus, the neocons got their wish to dispose of Israel's enemy and the entire
region paid the price.
Conclusion:
Motivation or intentions do not matter. What matters are actions and
consequences. And of course, the criticism of the role played by Jewish neoconservatives in pushing America into a war with Iraq was brushed off as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is the ad hominem shield always used by Jews to protect themselves from criticism. Ergo, critics of the Israeli bombing of Gaza are all Jew haters. Sniegoski says, “this has been the standard reaction to anyone who violates the existing taboo. In fact, the neocons have been quick to claim that criticism of neoconservatives is really anti-Semitic.... Norman Podhoretz, the doyen of neoconservatism, used the very popularity of the claim of the connection of neocons and Israel to the war as reason to reject it as classical ‘anti-Semitism’” (19).
Today’s
Neo-Marxism in U.S.
Recently
the U.S. has been undergoing a neo-Marxist revolution. The neo-Marxists are now
in control of the country after defeating a flimflam man just as empty headed
as George Bush and who reads even less, assuming Bush occasionally actually reads
the Bible. That man is Donald Trump. Just as America’s Iraq War made it easier
for ISIS, Trump made it easier for the left to take control of the country.
Antifa
Antifa is a left-wing political
movement in the United States that is essentially an outgrowth of Marxism. Publicly, Antifa is an anti-fascist and anti-racist organization. In reality,
it is an anti-America organization. “Individuals involved in the Antifa
movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, and
anti-state views, subscribing to a varied range of left-wing ideologies.... A
majority of adherents are anarchists, communists, and other socialists who
describe themselves as revolutionaries and criticize liberal democracy.” In
other words, they adhere to Marxist and anarchist ideologies. Its membership
appears to be primarily middle-class youths. Their modus operandi is primarily
violence. The organization has received funding from “liberal financiers like
George Soros" (“Antifa,” Wikipedia).
Yet, let’s call them what they really are: neo-Marxist nihilists who hate
everything.
Black Lives Matter
“Black
Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement protesting
against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence
against black people” (“Black Lives Matter,” Wikipedia). That does seem to be the gist of the BLM movement. The
question that looms large is whether or not the movement was hijacked by the
Marxist left. The Marxist movement that is occurring today in America is unlike
other revolutionary movements such as the French Revolutions and the Russian
Revolution. Those revolutions were fueled by millions of people—the
proletariat—starving and being oppressed by an authoritarian government and
class system. Marx would say there can be no revolution without a large
proletariat. With Marxist revolutions, numbers matter, or at least the once
did.
Yet
in today’s America 13.7 percent of the population lives in poverty (“2021
Poverty Projections - Urban Institute, online). On the other hand, 52% of
American adults middle class and upper-income households are 19%. (Rakesh
Kochhar, “The American middle class is stable...” Pew Research Center). That
means 71% of the population is well off. This is not a matter of a minority
oppressing and exploiting a majority. Thus, a different approach was needed to
gain sympathy for a Marxist revolution that lacked a numerically significant
proletariat. Using black people to justify that capitalistic America was evil
was a neo-Marxist strategy. This was “a typically communist tactic.” According to
Walter Reuther, this as was “the way the Communists worked; they put up Negroes
for show” (Glazer 181). The big question is whether or not Black Lives Matter
is just a matter of putting a black face on a Communist movement.
In
The Social Basis of American Communism
Nathan Glazer says, “The communist Party devoted more resources, more
attention, more effort, to the recruitment of Negro members than it expended on
any other social group...” (169). Why? Compared to industrial workers and
trade-unionists blacks were a minority. However, blacks had name recognition
whereas industrial workers and unionists were amorphous and mattered primarily
to their own membership. Blacks, on the other hand, had been slaves and the
object of hateful racism ever since the Civil War. Having black members among
its ranks would give the Communist movement cachet.
“Negroes
were still suspicious of white Communists” (171). Negro members often believed
that the Party pushed “Negroes forward simply to have a Negro front behind
which white leaders pulled the strings” (173). That could very well be the case
today. Leftists don’t have a large proletariat class to fire up so they use
black racism as their trigger for revolution. “But the fact was that the
Communist organizations always operated this way, with leaders behind the
scenes acting with complete disdain for rank-and-file members” (173). “The
white-chauvinism charges hit the Jewish membership particularly strongly. Since
Jews were largely middle class at his time, and living in middle-call
communities and leading middle-class lives, there were many grounds for
suspicion. Their communities might be all white; their apartment buildings all
white; they went on vacations to Miami; they might even have Negro domestics”
(179-180). Most interesting here is that these communist Jews were quite
financially successful in capitalistic America, even more so today.
Melina Abdullah
Who
pulls the strings today? One such person is Melina Abdullah (born Melina Rachel
Reimann, co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Black Lives Matter. Her father, John Reimann, was
"a union organizer and self-proclaimed Trotskyist. Her paternal
grandfather was Günter Reimann, a German-Jewish Marxist economist and member of
the Communist Party of Germany. (“Melina Abdullah,” Wikipedia) The disdain is absent but not the Marxism. According to peopleai.com
her worth is 5 million of dollars.
Alicia Garza
“The
Ford Foundation, one of the most powerful private foundations in the world,
with close ties to Wall Street and the US government, recently announced that
it is overseeing the funneling of $100 million over six years to several
organizations that play leading roles in the Black Lives Matter movement.... The
Ford Foundation receives the bulk of its endowment from corporate contributors
and very wealthy donors through trusts and bequeathments.... Alicia Garza, one
of the founders of Black Lives Matter, “is also on the board of a foundation
backed by billionaire George Soros, the Open Society Foundation’s Southern
Initiative” (Gabriel Black, “Billionaires back Black Lives Matter,” World Socialist Web Site). According to buzzlearn.com
Alicia Garza net worth or net income is estimated to be between $1 Million – $5
Million dollars.
Patrisse Cullors
“Black
Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from
2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” (Yaron Steinbuch,
“Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist,’” New York Post).
“The
Communists were, therefore, always on the lookout for victims of injustice who
might allow them to take over their ‘defense’” (Glazer 174). Yet, the
motivation was first and foremost was to promote and progress the Communist
revolution. Yet, apparently blacks were poor material for Bolshevization. It’s
understandable that the decedents of slaves would resist collectivization.
Still, the institution of slavery was similar in many ways to the
concentrations camps of the Nazi. Once closed, racist white Americans continued
to do their part in bringing about the revolution. It’s called karma.
A note on Slavery and the Civil
War
It
seems that before the Civil War there was a least among non-slaveowners a
modicum of sympathy for black slaves being exploited and treated as less than
human. And I suspect it was that sympathy that was responsible for the growing
intolerance toward slavery. As an institution, slavery went against Jesus’,
though not Christianity’s, view that each and every person was of value to God
and had inherent value that should be respected. Wikipedia says, “It was Christian activists, attracted by strong
religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist [of slavery]
movement” (“Christian abolitionism”). I would assume that even slave owners had
no reason to hate slaves, most of whom did not own plantations but were simple
farmers who owned a single slave or used slaves as domestics. This is only an assumption.
I read Harriet Jacobs’ Incidents in the
Life of a Slave Girl looking for evidence for my assumption. What I found
was exploitation, cruelty, and hatefulness—vicious among some slave owners.
Being a lover of non-human creatures, I find it difficult to comprehend the
attitudes and behavior of the slave-owning Flints (pseudonym for the family of Dr.
James Norcom) described in the story. I am capable of hate, but my hatred is
directed toward people who harm other people, especially women and children, or
even mistreat animals, but not toward skin color.
Yet,
maybe the cruelty of the Flints doesn’t require hatred, simply meanness, which
is a form of stupidity. Jacobs describes an abundance of brutish meanness during the Nat Turner Rebellion, during which thuggish whites behaved like the bandit clans in the video game Rage. Lacking moral sensibility such people are subhuman. We’ve seen that educated people such as politicians can be quite stupid. Today American blacks overlook the fact that
early Americans were not a Renaissance people. Few were morally or
philosophically sophisticated or enlightened. Brutality was an accepted norm. It was a brutish
way of life in part because circumstance demanded it to be. The American frontier
was a Darwinian environment. Three thinkers who should not be ignored are
Thomas Hobbes, Darwin, and Freud because they understood best humanity’s
primordial origins that civilization has only recently attempted once again to
overcome.
Still,
Dr. James Norcom’s meanness is surprising, though it shouldn’t be when an
entire nation of such men became Nazis in Germany. Dr. Norcom was not some poor
dirt farmer who owned a single slave nor was he a half slave to
drudgery. Dr. Norcom was well off. A slave
prepared his meals. I considered that perhaps Dr. Norcom’s meanness was à la Freud
a redirecting of his own self-loathing as a slave owner toward his slaves. But
that would require some internal decency (ego ideal?) being offended. I wanted
to believe that was the case, but find no reason to. That is one of the lessons history teaches. I was always disgusted when my dog or cat killed a bird, yet
men have been in the game of killing one another since forever. Ergo, kindness and benevolence are not inherent in humans. They have ids but no souls. The moral superego is
the product of the later stages of civilization. If you want to see the soul of
men, take a close look at Yahweh created from the masculine mindset of Jews. He
was the first slave owner.
In
her memoir, Harriet begins to doubt God's benevolence, and condemned the faith
her mother lovingly preached to her. Not unexpected given she was living in a
society of Christian hypocrites. And anyone who has read the Old Testament or
Quran knows that their God is hardly benevolent; to the contrary, his thinking
and behavior are malevolent, the deification of a typical American slave master.
In one passage Harriet refers to her brother’s (John) “God-given nature,”
meaning his goodness. Of course, that is a false notion. We are not the
children of God but the siblings of cats and dogs. However, Harriet’s comment is
suggestive because “God-given nature” could apply to slave owners like Dr. Norcom
who abused his slaves because he read in the Good Book that Yahweh’s behavior
justified such abuse. The Jews were in reality God’s chosen slaves to make
slaves of the rest of humanity. This is what might be called Old-Testament
Christianity that justifies mistreating others. It is a form of Christianity in
which Jesus’ life fails to inspire and his death matters only because it means
Christians don’t have to die regardless how many slaves they owned.
Harriet says that slaves were thrilled when they finally were allowed to attend church. But the lessons weren’t what they had hoped for: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the singleness of your hear, as unto Christ” (79). This message comes from Apostle Paul: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ... because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free” (Ephesians 6:5-8). So slaves held on to the belief that life would be better in postmortem. That was a lie, a lie slave owners could use to placate their slaves.
Harriet tells of her teaching Uncle Fred to read because “He thought he should know how to serve God better if he could only read the Bible” (84). However, the bible should not have been needed for Uncle Fred to know God. God should have revealed himself though acts of goodness, such as by sending Christ with a sword to liberate the slaves. Instead, all-knowing and all-seeing, he watched their torment from above and did nothing to end it. As it turned out, humans themselves with no help from God would have to end slavery. Would the slaves have been better off knowing that the divine hope was a delusion? Probably not given the slave owners were all-powerful with their dogs and guns. Marx call religion “the opium of the people," but his utopian State was no different. Marxism could be used to tell the slaves of Communism that utopia was just around the corner, if not for them then for their children. That too was a lie.
Greek Philosophers’ Search for
Wisdom
The
ancient Greek philosophers were looking for a way of understanding humanity that
would create unanimity. The Stoics were certainly on the right track. The
philosophers’ insights were two. First of all the Greeks idolized the human body
as beautiful, which all humans share common. (The root word of idolize is idol,
and thus that which would be hated by three Judaisms: Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam.) So there is an aesthetic shared physically by all human beings. We
even come in different shades and colors. Second, all humans beings have reason
in common. Epicurus recognized that both together are what make us human, and
for that reason he accepted all humans into his philosophical gabfests—not
about ideology but philosophy.
Ideologues are imprisoned by a single idea,
thus make lousy philosophers. That is
contrary to what Greek philosophers were trying to do—free the mind from a
Single Vision especially that of religion. They had been cleaning the
philosophical house before Apostle Paul and the Judeo-Christian Catholic Church
destroyed the broom, which was philosophy. They didn’t hate ideas but were
skeptical of them, especially those that claimed to be the one and only correct
ideas. Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism were the two schools of skeptical
philosophy. And their begetters were Buddhism and Socrates.
But
the Jewish ideology disrupted the process that was looking for commonality
based on aesthetics and reason. With its myth-based lie and hateful tribalism, the
ideology of Judaism created a false justification for animosity, hostility,
hatred of the other, antipathy, enmity, and malevolence instead of unanimity.
Once the ideology’s divisiveness took hold, there would be no going back. One
has to remember that the Greek philosophers were working within a polytheistic
world in which all ideas thus cultures were tolerated. That would end once
Judeo-Christianity took control of Greco-Roman civilization. Jacobs says, "There is a great difference between Christianity and religion at the south" (86). Unfortunately, that is not true.
*Ideas
greatly influence what cultures become. Logically, good ideas create good
cultures, and bad ideas create bad cultures. As far as I can tell, cultures
based on a single controlling idea (ideology) are never good. Best would be a
collection of good guiding ideas rather than a single idea. Two criteria for
good idea/culture are the following: the idea/culture should not violate Kant’s
principle of autonomy, which says that people’s autonomy should not be
interfered with as long as they do not interfere with other people’s autonomy.
People should be left to behave and thinks as they wish as long as they allow
other people to do the same. None of the Jewish ideologies follow this
principle.* The second principle has to do with the Earth and all its
creatures. The value of the Earth and its creatures (creations really) should
not be reduced to utility value. One of the greatest harms resulting from the
Jewish religious ideologies is the idea that the Earth and its creature were
provided by God for human to use as they see fit. It’s a false idea based on an
invented (false) ideology. The idea was also adopted by Marx for his secular
religion: that all of nature is to serve humanity. Both ideologies reduce
nature to a storehouse of raw materials.
*The
Jewish religions weren’t the only evil religions on the globe. The Maya and
Aztec religions demanded human sacrifice. The difference is that the Jewish
religious and secular ideologies became global.
One
finds in thinking of Native Americans a totally different way of relating to
nature and its creatures, a relationship defined by respect and appreciation.
One finds this relationship described in most scholarly books on Native
American tribes, but two popular books by Native Americans are Black Elk Speaks and Land of the Spotted Eagle by Luther
Standing Bear. What is absent in the worldview of Native Americans is the
belief that humanity was the purpose of creation and that humans are
categorically superior to nature and its creatures, not simply in ability but
in value. They considered nature their home, and it was literally, and all life
forms were members of a single family to which they belonged.
The
Greeks, who had a very high opinion of themselves given they considered their
culture superior to all others, did not consider nature as inferior to
themselves. Many of their gods were the creatures and forces of nature. In
other words, their religion celebrated nature rather than denigrate it. The
only value nature has for the Abrahamic religions that isn’t utilitarian is their
being God’s creations. Nature was one of the fundamental illustrations of God’s
power and goodness. Remove nature as his creation and there is little left in
God to admire. In truth, nature is self-creating.
It
is true that Native Americans believed in a Great Spirit, which is given
different names. But really notion of God is simply a deification of nature—combination
provider and operating system (logos
or Nous in Greek philosophy or Gaia
according to environmentalist James Lovelock). In his novel Christopher Thomas Smith’s Excursion into
the Interdict Zone Frank Kyle does a good job of exploring the idea of the
Great Spirit.
However,
one really has to turn to poets and artists to find an appreciation of nature
for itself without the clutter of ideology, and there is much to appreciate and
value. Ideology corrupts and degrades our understanding of the nature. I will
offer the poet and truly wise man Matsuo Bashō as an example of appreciative
awareness:
A
butterfly flits
All
alone—and on the field,
A
shadow in the sunlight.
Loneliness—
Hanging
from a nail,
A
cricket.
Quietly,
quietly,
Yellow
mountain roses fall—
Sound
of the rapids.
Under
the Crescent moon
The
earth looms hazily—
Buckwheat
flowers.
Selected
from Makoto Ueda’s The Master Haiku Poet
Matsuo Bashō. A similar view of the world, greatly influenced by Basho is
found in Frank Kyle’s collection of poems title Tatiana. There is no ideological corruption in Basho thinking. In fact,
his goal was to overcome the ethnocentric understanding of our relationship
with nature. It was, to use a phrase from phenomenologist Edmund Husserl, a
return to things themselves. He sought to be a camera that captures the entity
in itself without modifying it with religion or romanticizing as the Romantics
do.
To
use an idea taken from the Taoist Lao Tzu what value would a cup have if there was
nothing for it to contain? What would be the value of a camera if there was nothing
for it to photograph? In the great cosmic scheme of things humans have no
greater purpose than other creatures, though unlike other creatures humans can
invent purposes for themselves such as becoming an artist, thinker, or athlete.
They have no cosmic purpose because nothing does, not even the Universe. That’s
one reason Jews invented Yahweh, to give themselves a cosmic purpose, which was
to serve the God they invented—Yahweh. Yet, there was one cosmic purpose they
could give themselves that was not a matter of invention. They could be
intelligent, appreciative observers. Their cosmic role would be to observe,
understand, and appreciate. Because the reality is that humans are nothing than
tourists in the cosmos, visitors from nowhere. And appreciative observers are
exactly what artists and scientists are. Without nature humans would be like
the cup that has nothing to fill it or the camera with nothing to photograph.
Basho’s
central theme is a return to reality as it is, not as we want it to be. The
Jewish religious ideologies cut humanity off from reality. And like Basho,
scientists rooted in the Aristotelian (not Platonic) tradition sought to return
to reality, scientists who found the world fascinating and worth investigating and
exploring just for what it is. These are not scientists who work in commercial
or military laboratories. They are men and women such as Carl Sagan, Jane
Goodall, Rosalind Franklin, Rachel Carson, Edward O. Wilson, Charles Lyell, and
Charles Darwin. What Basho understood is that the human condition is the same
for all creatures, the only difference being we are thinking creatures and our
thoughts and feelings are interactive. There is an image of Basho sitting on a
branch next to a crow. Apparently the image was inspired by this poem:
On a
withered branch
A crow
is perched
An
autumn evening
Our
predicament in life is that of the crow with the difference that we are capable
of intelligent appreciative awareness, which the poem illustrates. I must add
the word intelligent because I have dog that is capable of appreciative
awareness. Love is appreciative awareness. As Basho show the essence of life is
quite simple, but ideologies and general stupidity prevent most humans from
understanding that simple truth. This seems truer than ever in the U.S.
The Civil War Destroyed
Emerging White Sympathy toward Blacks
The
Civil War made reconciliation between whites and blacks impossible. The
attitude of white Americans would change for the worse as a result of a war that
brought millions of American men into the war, resulting in 620,000 to 750,000 Northern
and Southern soldiers killed along with an undetermined number of civilians.
The Civil War remains the deadliest military conflict in American history. Until
the Vietnam War was added, it killed more Americans than all other wars
combined.
“Out
of 174,206 known wounds of the extremities treated by Union surgeons, nearly
30,000 wounded soldiers had amputations with approximately a twenty-seven
percent fatality rate.... Historians estimate another 25,000 Confederate
amputations were performed with a similar fatality rate” (“The Wounded” by
Glenna R. Schroeder-Lein,” Essential
Civil War Curriculum online). So, thousands of veterans limped back to
their homes. And the war didn’t just kill men but destroyed cities and
economically wrecked the lives of millions of Americans. Almost no Americans
were unaffected by the war. As a result, the war left an avalanche of hatred
much or most of which was directed toward blacks.
It’s
my belief that the Civil War is the original cause of endemic hated toward
blacks in America. That war killed more Americans and destroyed more cities
than any other war. It erased an entire culture. Both the South and the North
lost thousands husbands, sons, brothers, and boyfriends. Americans were angry and
they needed some group to hate for the war. Blacks got the blame even though
they had nothing to do with starting the war. It made sense that racism was
strongest in the South, but it existed in the north as well. (“Free States
sustain a law which hurls fugitives back into slavery,” Jacobs, 50) The big
problem with America's leaders has been their use of war to solve problems.
Slavery would have ended within a decade or two, simply do to economic and
attitudinal changes.
“In
spite of the pervasive influence of slavery throughout the three or four
decades before the Civil War, a large majority of the white population of the
South had, in actuality, no direct connection with the institution. In the
Southern states as a whole, not more than a quarter of the white heads of
families were slave –owners, and even in the cotton states the proportion was
less than one-third.... Like their ancestors during the colonial period, the
inhabitants of these regions [non-slave owning regions of the South] were
generally hostile to the plantation aristocracy and to the institution of
slavery, although at the same time they had no sympathy for the Negroes”
(Parkes, The United States of America
211-212). Parkes also points out that illiteracy was common in the South and
though the arts and sciences and liberal opinions flourish in close proximity
to urban centers “Much of the South... was still essentially frontier country”
(215). And “The limits of slavery were fixed by soil and climate; no matter
what the federal government might do, the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountain
regions could never accommodate slave plantations” (The American Experience 227). And at the time of the Civil War
there were only thirty-four states. Thus pioneering was still a part of
American life.
It’s
an anachronism to claim that Americans then were like Americans are now, and a
self-serving distortion to claim Americans now are like them. Though human
nature is a constant (most unfortunately in the case of men), the cultural
mindsets are not the same. Certainly, slavery had been abolished by the British
in 1833, but the way of life and culture of Great Britain was totally different
from that of America just before the Civil War. Great Britain was complete with
centuries of civilization behind it. It was perhaps the most enlightened
society (not perfect but wanting to be) on the planet in spite of its
self-degrading colonialism. The way of life in America was far more Darwinian
in which individuals were struggling to survive, many doing so on their own. As
a society, America was as barbaric as it was civilized. A national Jekyll and
Hyde. To expect humanitarian concern for blacks among whites struggling to
survive is unrealistic. Slavery and the destruction of the Native American
nations were tragedies, but it was a Darwinian environment in which survival of the
fittest also meant being indifferent to the suffering of people who were not
members of your own tribe, and often to them as well, as the television miniseries Into the West* testifies. Things haven’t changed much in the world today. And
tribalism now dominates American culture—dignified with the label
multiculturalism.
*This
series is not a tribute to the American pioneer but a demonization of white American
settlers. It could have been titled The Evil White Man or Capitalism Run Amok.
The intent of the series seems to be to celebrate Native Americans, and they
should be celebrated (they are my heroes), but also to shame and revile white
Americans, to create among white Americans a sense of self-loathing. The series
does a pretty good job of doing this. The wheel serves as the uniting theme of
the narrative. In reference to Native Americans it is a spiritual symbol. In
reference to the American pioneers its represents conquest, perhaps even
technology. The movie accomplishes its agenda by cherry picking the cruelest
tragedies and greatest moral lapses associated with white Americans during the
westward movement—such as slavery, Indian massacres, and the slaughter of the
American bison. These awful events occurred and white men were responsible. The
opening of North America to Europeans encouraged the worst in human behavior manifested
in masculine id: greed, bloodlust, and will to power.
Nevertheless,
the gold miners, Indian killers, outlaws, and buffalo killers were a minority
of the pioneer population. Just as the slave owners in the south were the
exception rather than the rule. What the series ignores are the covered wagon
pioneers. They were the majority population of the westward movement. They
sought their forty acres of land upon which to plant crops and raise a family. In the 1800s, 90 percent of the population
lived on farms. Americans were a nation of farmers, not gold seekers, not
outlaws, not Indian killers. But focusing on the farm folk would make it
impossible to demonize white Americans. Was the westward movement unbridled
capitalism as the movie suggests? There was some of that certainly, but most of
all it was a Darwinian struggle for wealth and territory. And most of all it
was a failure of political and military leadership, which continues today in
America. Wisdom and decency have been pretty much absent among the men who have
the greatest influence on America’s destiny.
Hollywood
began to hate America sometime after World War II, hatred fueled by an infusion
of Marxist ideology into moviemaking. The film noir were the earliest examples
of Hollywood’s hatred of America. The general theme of film noir is that
everyone is guilty because the capitalistic mindset (greed, in other words) rules
in America. Criminals aren’t the exception but simply a version of capitalism. There
are bankers and bank robbers. Both are capitalist though Marxist Hollywood
glorifies the latter. The evil America is depicted in the movies High Noon and Mad Men. Americans are demonized in Steven Spielberg’ Marxist fable
An American Tail, a cartoon
about the Mousekewitzes,
a Russian-Jewish family of mice who migrate to the United States a country
where there are no cats. But of course there are cats, that is, white anti-Semites.
It’s not surprising that Spielberg was the executive producer of Into the West that shows white Americans
to be racists haters of blacks, Indians, and Chinese.
What
is overlooked is the role of Jewish religious ideology—Judeo-Christianity—or what
I call Old Testament Christianity that made North America appear as the new Canaan,
a promise land given to white Judeo-Christians to conquer and subdue just as
Canaan was given by God to Jews to invade and conquer. During their invasion of
Canaan Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of men, women,
children, and even animals. From Joshua the slaughter of the pagans of Jericho:
“They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living
thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (6:21).
That sounds a lot like the Sand Creek Massacre and the massacre at Broken Knee
depicted in the film. In other words, the Bible enabled whites to murder the
pagan Indians with a clear conscience. White Judeo-Christians believed they
were the new chosen people, that America was the new Promise Land, and that the
Indians were the new Canaanites. It was all a matter of prophecy.
In
Land of the Spotted Eagle Luther
Standing Bear (portrayed in the movie) says something that is revealing about
the two views of the afterlife: “Nothing so proves a soft and humane spirit as
the conception and ideals of the life hereafter, and it was the very beneficence
of the Indian’s attitude that left him unprepared for the harshness of the
white man’s vindictive religion” (212). The reference is to Hell as a form of
punishment. What is overlooked is that this notion is not that of the white man
but of Jewish ideology. The roots of the so-called white man are not Jewish but
Greco-Roman. The Greeks’ view of the
afterlife was no happy hunting ground but neither was it a lake of fire. The
Judeo-Christians attempted to cleanse Indian of their Indianness and transform them
into Christian white man clones. This is described in the movie, which is taken
from Luther Standing Bear’s memoir.
However,
the same thing happened to Greeks and Romans who were cleansed of their
cultural identity by being Judaized into Christians. And as Ramsay MacMullen
explains in Christianizing the Roman
Empire and Catherine Nixey describes in The
Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World was more
violent than what Native Americans experienced. My ancient ancestors were
Judaized just as Native Americans were. What the Jews created was a religious
ideology that invented the pagan or heathen. Before the Jews came along
everyone was a pagan so the term was meaningless. With the Jews pagans became
people who are non-Jews, non-Judeo-Christians, non-Judeo-Muslims, or heathens.
Jewish ideology demonized pagan peoples—which included Native Americans. And
that demonization made possible conquering and killing them with a clear
conscience.
Then
there is the question of the Jews 20th century bloody invasion of
Palestine. Palestinian Muslims could be slaughtered with a clear conscience
just as the Native Americans were. Palestinians refer to the invasion as “Al
Nakba,” which literally translates as “The Catastrophe.” Yet, to Jews and
Judeo-Christians it was not a catastrophe but a divine event fulfilling Jewish
prophecy. Thus, slaughtering Palestinians and driving them from their
homes and homeland was divinely justified.
Overall,
expecting a high level of humanitarianism from the South would be to expect it
today from Afghanistan. This is where blacks today get it wrong criticizing
white people for slavery. Most Americans were not involved. In fact, most were
struggling-to-survive farmers and wage earners, the so-called “white slaves” of
the Industrial Revolution. “Whereas a Northern wage-earner might be thrown out
to starve when he grew old or whenever business succumbed to a depression [as
during the Great Depression], a Southern slave could always be sure of a home
and livelihood” (Parkes, The United
States of America 209). Still, “For the blacks, slavery was a regime of
sorrow, of degradation, of unremitting toil, and dreadful personal insecurity
and perpetual frustration” (Hugh Brogan, Longman
History of the United States of America 289). However, “Cruel toil was as
much the law in the factories of New England, the slums of New York and on the
farming frontier as it was in Alabama” (Brogan 290). And “In parts of the
South, especially in Georgia and Alabama, there were white families who had
settled in pine barrens or other infertile areas where successful farming was
impossible” (The United States of America
212).
I
doubt black slaves were hated before the war except by really evil slave owners,
or generally mean people; there are a lot of them. If there is any truth to the
TV series The Wire, many blacks have
been guilty of the same meanness toward other blacks, and it wasn’t
displacement, just meanness. Between 1980-2008 93% of Black victims killed by
Black perpetrators (Reuters, “Fact
check: False data on U.S. racial murder rates,” online). Henry Parkes says in The American Experience that “Three
quarters of the white population did not belong to the slaveowning classes, and
a majority even of the slaveowners were small farmers rather than planters [who
according to Harriet Jacobs were the very worst] and were accustomed to work in
the fields alongside their Negroes” (219) “and often regarded them much as
Northern farmers regarded their hired men” (Parkes, The United States of America 207).
“There is no doubt that the
dependent position of the Negro invited cruelty.... But the balance of the
evidence supports the Southern belief that the majority of the slaveowners
accepted responsibility for the welfare of their dependents and that the majority
of the slaves submitted to servitude without conscious resentment” (The American Experience 223). They were
used but not hated. My view is that put a population in a state of
powerlessness and its members will be taken advantage of by people with power.
It’s true for animals and human are animals. We see barbarity—worse than
anything found among animals—in our own society. Women, children, and homeless
people are preyed upon every day.
Ironically, human culture can encourage the worst tendencies of human
nature. And that is exactly what the Jewish ideologies have done. We recently saw
that in Afghanistan where Judeo-Muslims killed at least 50 people and
wounded more than 100 in three explosions targeting girls outside a school in
Kabul. Is that abnormal human behavior? Unfortunately not, uncivilized and inhumane (an advanced moral notion) yes, abnormal no. Consider the behavior of mass murderers in the U.S.
As
Parkes says, “In spite of the pervasive influence of slavery throughout the
three or four decades before the Civil War, a large majority of the white
population of the South had, in actuality, no direct connection with the
institution”(The United States of America
211-212), yet once this plantation aristocracy was destroyed and the post-war
South “was unable to protect herself from exploitation by Northern banking and
business corporations or to maintain her agrarian way of life...” and “low
wages and long hours” (The American
Experience 236) became the norm, that hostility shifted toward the blacks—as a scapegoat if nothing else.
And “in the South and in the North race discrimination continued to be an
apparently indissoluble element the American pattern of behavior” (237). Racist
attitudes would remain not because blacks were thought of in the context of
slavery but because the hatred, that was the result of the war.
Most
Americans probably had little or no contact with blacks. But the Civil War
changed all that. Alexander the Great was no racist. He was fascinated by other
cultures, other races. But he was a brutal conqueror. He slaughtered thousands
of people, and not just soldiers. And unlike Jews, Christians, Muslims, and
Marxists, he wasn't motivated by ideology. The aggressive streak in men has
nothing to do with color but can be directed toward color in given circumstances.
My Civil War explanation for racism in America might be all wrong. I don't
know. What I do know is that Black Lives Matter, like the Civil War, has
increased the divide between blacks and whites. Of course, BLM is a Marxist
driven organization thus depends on division to succeed.
Division
is a requirement for a Marxist revolution. So it could very well be that
blacks’ new master is Marxist ideology. Between the end of the Civil War and
the rise of the black left, black culture possessed an existential cool envied
by young white Americans. Their music in particular illustrated that blacks
march to the beat of a different drummer, one that was unique and their own.
Then came along the Marxist Pied Piper. Cool and Marxism are incompatible.
Black Lives Matter has nothing to teach whites except self-loathing or hatred
of blacks. And that they want a big pay out for the suffering of their ancestors is like putting their ancestors on the auction block. Or is it another form of revenge, though not against the slave owners but against taxpayers who just happen to be white and never owned a slave? The whites they attract are the likes of Antifa, an organization
fueled by hatred and a nihilistic ideology that loves nothing but hates
everything and everyone other than its own members and probably them as well.
Glazer
says something interesting about the Marxists’ attempt to recruit blacks into
the Communist Party: Recruiting blacks “was a permanent problem, and it was
plainly based on the fact that since the greatest efforts were being made to
bring Negroes into the party, they entered with the lowest degree of
indoctrination, with the least commitment, and with the least knowledge [of
Marxist ideology], and consequently found it easiest to leave” (176). Clearly,
the most indoctrinated members are the most devoted to the party line. Second,
it could be that American blacks had a much more complex view of who they were. They
didn’t see themselves simply as proletariat or Bolsheviks. They had a culture that was
invisible to the Marxists but not to all whites especially young whites. So,
perhaps blacks didn’t want to surrender their cool to become Marxist foot
soldiers.
Finally,
less than a century earlier their people had been slaves. Perhaps they
preferred not to become slaves to Marxists, who were mostly white men. Glazer
finally says, “the same factors in Negro work that led to high fluctuation led
to an over-all poor quality of the Negro membership, from the point of view of
developing good Bolsheviks” (176). What becomes clear reading Glazer’s book The Social Basis of American Communism
is that the Communist Party in the U.S. wasn’t interested in helping various
ethnic groups but only in increasing party membership. From a Marxist
perspective, ethnicity is simply an obstacle to be overcome. The goal was to
create a society of devoted Bolsheviks like the authoritarian goons in video
games such as Rage and Half-Life 2.
Enters George Soros King of
Open Borders
The
Marxist revolution could not depend on blacks alone. They represent only 13.4%
of the U.S. With basically open borders, they have been surpassed by Hispanics,
who represent 18% of the population, almost 59 million people. And that was in
2017. The share of black men who are in the upper-income bracket rose from 13%
in 1960 to 23% in 2016. Lois M. Collins says, “Nearly 6 in 10 black men reach
the middle class or higher by middle age, a nearly 20 percent increase compared
to 1960. And the share living in poverty has dropped from 41 percent to 18 percent
over the same time period” (“Most black males reach the middle class or higher.
Here's what drives their success” Desert
News 2018). In other words, the black proletariat has declined considerably
with the increase in bourgeois blacks.
To
compensate for the decline of the proletariat, the left needed a plan to
augment the proletariat class in America. Putting out the welcome mat to the
world’s proletariat was the solution, in particular a big welcome mat on the
southern border. Anna
Brown says, “The Hispanic population grew to 53 million in 2012, a 50% increase
since 2000 and nearly six times the population in 1970, according to the most
recent U.S. Census Bureau data. Meanwhile, the overall U.S. population
increased by only 12% from 2000 to 2012. Hispanic population growth accounted
for more than half of the country’s growth in this time period” (“The U.S.
Hispanic population has increased sixfold since 1970,” Pew Research Center).
Blacks
serve only as bait in a Marxist bait-and-switch tactic. For the revolution to
really take hold a proletariat class was required. Thus open borders. Hungarian
Prime Minister Viktor Orban accused billionaire investor George Soros of being
a prominent open borders activist. “His name is perhaps the strongest example
of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support
everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle," Orban said in
an interview on public radio Kossuth. In response, Soros said in an e-mailed
statement that Orban’s “plan treats the protection of national borders as the
objective and the refugees as an obstacle.” “Our plan treats the protection of
refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle” (link on “George
Soros,” Wikipedia). Thus, perhaps
Soros’ plan is the same as Antifa’s, chanted at protests: “No borders, no
walls, no USA at all.”
Both
Soros and Antifa remind one of Bazarov in Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. The left must stoke violence and destruction in
order to stoke us-versus-them hatred because that hatred is required to fuel a
Marxist revolution. The left also causes chaos and destruction so that it can
promise to restore order and rebuild cities. This is not simply part of a
narrative but an ideology, a blueprint for revolution. The problem is that the
base the left relies on is violent and nihilistic. These are Bazarov
radicals. Historically, the Bazarovs won when the Marxist revolution succeeded
in Russia and transformed the nation into the USSR. An anti-American version of
the USSR is what the left wants. The left’s goal in America is not a new
America but no America at all.
Organic Nationalism versus
Ideological Nationalism
One’s
nation is one’s homeland and culture. Not to have a national home is to be
homeless. My national home is America, the cultural soil I grew from. In spite
of its faults, and it has had many, some egregious, it remains the soil that
gave me birth. And it isn't all bad. It gave me the freedom to find my
own way to self-realization. The followers of Soros and Antifa are hollow
people, homeless, stuffed with ideology like scarecrows stuffed with straw. They
are empty in the way Bazarov is empty. He is rootless, and believing in nothing
of substance he can only destroy. Native Americans are nationalists. Each has
his or her own tribe. Anyone who reads about the lives of Native Americans such
as Luther Standing Bear or Black Elk understand the tribe was everything. It
was one’s extended family. Without it one was nothing. Native American tribes
are organic nations. They are both wholesome and appealing because they are not
based on an ideology, some ideologue’s blueprint of what they should be and how
they should live. Many Native American children were sent to Indian schools the purpose of which was to cleanse Indian children of their Indian heritage. The slogan was “kill the Indian, save the man.” In reality it was a process that killed the Indian and created a hollow man or artificial man, a process applied to the girls as well. It continues today: “Stealing Indian kids continues,” https://thecirclenews.org/opinion/stealing-indian-kids-continues/.
Native
Americans believed in God, the Great Spirit, which was a label for the workings
of nature similar to the already mentioned Greek philosophers’ nous (mind) or logos (reason)—a
rational, beneficial operating system unique to Earth. Like the pagans of
ancient Greece, they were not God’s slaves because no such God existed. Thus
they lived freely but loyal to their tribe rooted in a particular place. Some
tribes were close to perfection (Havasupai, Mohave, Hopi, and endless others),
peaceful rather than warlike toward other tribes. Some were less than perfect because
they were warlike toward other tribes, which would be their weakness when the
white man arrived. Many joined the white man to fight against other tribes. But
it was a Darwinian world in which territory was fought over and the warrior
cultures enjoyed fighting. It took the arrival to the white man for them to
realize what was at stake: a way of life. So nations and tribes can behave like
individual men and act as aggressive bullies. But Native Americans never killed
another Native American for what he believed. As far as I know, cultural
cleansing was not part of the warrior game they played.
Native
Americans celebrated tribalism, which is not the same as multiculturalism
because multiculturalism destroys the nation. That’s why Indians don’t want it,
Muslims don’t want it, Israelis don’t want it, though Jews insist hypocritically
that America become a multicultural nation—a collective of cultural odds and
ends. Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the
one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other”
(Matthew 6:24). The Jewish ideologies of Judeo-Christianity, Judeo-Islam, and
Marxism installed a false master based on ideology in unique organic cultures that
prevented serving the traditional national culture.
Christians who invaded
North America did that to the native cultures. In other words, they Judaized
them by converting them to Judeo-Christianity, often telling Indians that they
had to cut their hair, change their dress, give up their native language, and
certainly give up their native beliefs, which were superior to the unnatural
Jewish ideology being imposed on them. Native Americans did not live in a multicultural
society. They lived in a multinational environment that was not a society but a
collection of nations across the continent, similar to the collection of
nations that make up Europe. We refer the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Nation, etc.,
and armed conflicts between the U.S. government and Native American nations. Multicultural
societies threaten tribes and destroy nations. We see today in America tribes
turning against America, in part because America has a knack for making enemies
then accepting them as immigrants. It’s the story of the Trojan Horse multiplied
and magnified. The first loyalty of post-American immigrants is to their homeland,
to their home culture, not to the nation that abused their own people.
Environmental
biologists tell us that invasive plant and animal species from other regions of
the world that are alien in their new environment can change both the
demographics and environment of their adopted home. In the regions where they have become dominant, invasive species can lead
to the extinction of native plants and animals. They permanently alter habitats. With humans invasive species
become invasive cultures. Where they have become dominant, invasive cultures have created alien zones resulting in the disappearance of traditional American culture, which today is usually declared unwanted. The most extreme examples are the
Muslim no-go zones where non-Muslims are forcefully unwelcome. Hispanic gangs have driven
gringos and blacks from their old neighborhoods transforming them into barrios.
And each alien culture is fueled by its connection with the homeland or home
culture, which usually is not threatened by multiculturalism because invasive
cultures are considered disruptive or corrupting thus unwanted or not allowed.
America as a multicultural society sounds great but reality shows
otherwise. It has become a hodgepodge of angry cultures—most of the anger
directed toward the people who allowed them in. But once the old America is
subdued, the invasive cultures will turn on one another. Their hatred of
America is what unites them for the time being.
Don’t
get me wrong. I’m not saying that America doesn’t deserve the animosity it has
received from blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Muslims. It is guilty of
crimes committed against these people. The U.S. annexed Puerto Rico, the
Philippines, and Guam and acquired the Hawaiian Islands. All of these actions
were immoral in the extreme. “Before the end of the First World War, American armed
forces had assumed partial or complete control over Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican
Republic, and Nicaragua, and had also intervened in Mexico” (Parkes, The American Experience 332), which it
had no moral right to do. I’ve already noted the invasion of Vietnam and Iraq.
Only the Vietnamese seem willing to forgive America for its sins against them,
but then again their roots are Buddhist. Jews are the only group that holds a grudge
against America for no reason other than ideology. The encryption on the Statue
of Liberty is that of a Jew. America helped liberate Jews from the evils of
Hitlerism, offered them refuge after the war, and even supported their Zionist
ambitions. And what did America get in return. Ideological hatred, political manipulation,
and ingratitude. Yet they continue to live in the country they hate, for the
sake of the continuing revolution perhaps.
A Democratic Marxist Revolution
The
neo-Marxists got what they wanted. They are now the dominant political power in
the U.S. And they can claim that their revolution was democratic, which it was,
in part due to the indoctrinated dolts on the other side of the aisle. They used
blacks as their rioting jackboots to fuel the anger needed energize the
revolution. Their claim was unarmed blacks have been hunted down and murdered
by white police officers. That claim angered both whites and blacks. However, “The Washington Post has created a
database of every known deadly police shooting in America since 2015. As of this writing, 6,211 people have been
shot and killed by law enforcement officers.
46% of them—2,883 to be exact—were white, while 24% (1,496 total) were
black. Just 6% were unarmed” (“The Truth About Police Shootings in America,”
MacIver Institute, April 14, 2021). A sad statistic in any case; nevertheless,
hardly one that justifies a revolution.
Something
more was needed: a proletariat population that would vote left, that is,
Democratic since the Democratic Party has morphed into a Marxist Party. Since a
substantial proletariat population didn’t exist in America, it had to be
imported—legally and illegally. “The most recent Pew Research estimate puts the
total number of unauthorized immigrants at 10.5 million in 2017. Overall, this
represents a minority of the foreign-born population, which in 2017 numbered
44.5 million—45% of whom are naturalized citizens, and 27% of whom are lawful
permanent residents” (Elaine Kamarck and Christine Stenglein, “How many
undocumented immigrants are in the United States and who are they?” The Brookings Institution, November 12,
2019). And “More than 41 million immigrants lived in the U.S. as of 2013, more
than four times as many as was the case in 1960 and 1970.” 14% come from Europe
and Canada, 28% from Mexico, 24% from other Latin America, 26% from South and
East Asia, and 8% other. (“Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S.,” Pew Research Center). Key here is that
only 14% are white. Thus the importance of vilifying white Americans: to
attract the 86% to the Democratic Party. That is where Black Lives Matter and
Antifa come in.
Of
course, now there are no illegal aliens, only asylum seekers, all of whom are
welcome. Most recently, “Border Patrol agents have made more than 381,000
arrests along the border during the fiscal year that began in October, about
82% of which were single adults. That is more than double the 161,000 arrests [more
accurately brief detention for food and medical care] during the year-earlier
period, roughly 68% of which were adults” (Michelle Hackman and Alicia A.
Caldwell, “Biden’s Immigration Plan for Surge of Migrants at U.S. Southern
Border: What You Need to Know,” The Wall
Street Journal, May 12, 2021).
The Demographic Consequences
Marxist Mission
Marxists
have taken control of the government and have set up an immigration plan that
will ensure that they will retain control at the federal level, as they have in
many states such as California (39% Latino, 36% white, 15% are Asian or Pacific
Islander, 6% are African American, fewer than 1% are Native American) and New
Mexico (46% Hispanic, white 36.9, Native America 8.78%, African American 1.9%).
This is the Marxist ideal for America’s future. Sometime during the past couple
of decades the bourgeois villain became the white man villain. The demographic
groups that have historical and cultural roots in nation’s history and culture
have become marginalized. Once the French Revolution was over, the demographic
of France was still French. The same was true for Russian and Chinese
revolutions. Russia remained Russian and China remained Chinese. In America,
however, the immigrant proletariat used to drive the Marxist revolution also
changed the nation’s demographic. State by state immigrants have become and
will continue to become the dominant demographic and traditional white and even
black Americans will become increasingly marginalized. The good news is that white politicians in the Democratic Party will one day find themselves marginalized.The melting pot has been broken and now like Humpty Dumpty can never be put together again.
And
the influx of Marxists from the old world is the origin of this revolution. The
new America will be made up of a population having no roots in American history
or culture. They are carpetbaggers who come to America not to become Americans
but for their own personal gain and to establish micro-nation enclaves. . Their loyalty will always be to their home nation. America is becoming a multicultural nation consisting of tribes, though not like Native American Tribes, all of which are made up of Indians. America no longer has a unifying foundation, which can come only from a nation’s history and its historical culture.
We already see that the American flag, national anthem, and 4th of
July have become vilified. Marxists believe that the Marxist ideology will
unify the country. That will not happen. That can happen only if a nation’s
demographic is unified. At least religious ideologies have a god to believe in.
A political ideology is in itself without life. On the other hand, keeping the
country in a state of disunity keeps the revolution going. To what end? The total
marginalization of white Americans, apparently.
The Israeli-Palestine Conflict
The
irony of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is that it isn’t between people but
between two Jewish ideologies. And it is taking place in the same place where
Judaism condemned Canaanites as an ungodly people who could, as a result, be
slaughtered and their homeland appropriated. In 1948 the Jewish invasion was
repeated, but now the pagans were Muslims, followers of a Jewish ideology. The
two Jewish ideologies make reconciliation impossible, which is the nature of
Jewish ideologies—no compromise. Dictators, wars, conquests, even slavery come
and go, but ideologies are forever. The only solution is to modify the two
ideologies so that they are compatible, but that will never happen since each
side considers its ideology sacrosanct. The best ideology is no ideology.
Though
based on false claims, Jewish ideologies have taken on a life of their own.
They can’t be killed by truth because their adherents ignore the truth. And
that would be fine except each and every one—Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, Judeo-Islam,
and Marxism are essentially declaration of war against non-believers. Each and
every one creates enemies where none existed before.
Condemning this Article as Anti-Semitic
Most
likely this article will be compared to The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic text purporting to
describe a Jewish plan for global domination. I’ve never read the work and have
no desire to because it's a fabrication. Yet, isn’t that true for all the
Jewish ideologies based on myth? There
is no historical record of Moses. And there is no historical record of Abraham,
Isaac, or Jacob. Biblical stories are based mostly on legends. The truth seekers Israel
Finkelstein and Niel Asher Silberman say that the search for the historical
patriarchs was ultimately unsuccessful. “The biblical stories should thus be
regarded as a national mythology with no more historical basis than the Homeric
saga of Odysseus’s travel or Virgil's saga of Aeneas’s founding of Rome” (The Bible Unearthed 36). And basically
the same can be said of Marx’s idea of historical materialism that states
history demands the destruction of capitalistic societies.
In
The Origins of Totalitarianism Hannah
Arendt says in regard to The Protocols,
“The point for the historian is that the Jews, before becoming the main victims
of modern terror, were the center of Nazi ideology. And an ideology which has
to persuade and mobilize people cannot choose its victim arbitrarily. In other
words, if a patent forgery like the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is
believed by so many people that it can become the text of a whole political
movement, the task of the historian is no longer to discover a forgery” (8). Arendt
gives the impression that Jews have innocent victims of anti-Semitic
ideologies. By innocent I mean only that they have never themselves created
similar ideologies that became "the text of a whole political movement" against an enemy declared as such by the ideology. But they have. And each of their ideologies has had a
boomerang effect of creating enemies of the Jews where none had existed before.
Furthermore, she notes that Jews have been the victims of “eternal hostility,”
yet Jewish ideologies have resulted in eternal hostility toward one group or
another. How many people and nations have suffered because of Judaism,
Judeo-Christianity, Judeo-Islam, Marxism, and neoconservatism? And often the
victims are members of one of the ideologies, as illustrated today by the
conflict between Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians. The first ideology
that encouraged anti-Semitism was the Judaism, which declared non-Jews as being
an abomination in God’s eyes and thus having no moral rights. It is obvious
that such an ideology would create enemies. Jews really couldn’t expect to be
liked or even tolerated by the people they themselves hated. Hatred breeds
hatred. It’s that simple. The second ideology that encouraged anti-Semitism was
Judeo-Christianity, created by Jews, Jesus’ apostles but not Jesus. He forgave the Jews, a very unJewish response (see the story of Dinah and the Shechemites, Genesis 34).
Shakespeare’s
The Merchant of Venice provides an
insight into the situation of Palestine. The hatred that exists between the Jew Shylock
and the Christian Venetians is not caused by his being a moneylender. In fact,
his service is valued; otherwise, it would not have been used. Money had to be borrowed for all sorts of risky
enterprises. The hatred is between two ideologies. The lovers Lorenzo and
Jessica relate to one another unaffected or untainted by ideology. Love
transcends ideology. And significantly, love is natural and ideology is
artificial. Yet, young love is quite powerful; that no so true for adults. Palestinians
and Jews don’t even like one another because they are unable to transcend the
ideologies that demand they hate each other.
Violette Reine Elizabeth Szabo
Was a Hero
She
was a British/French Special Operations Executive (SOE) agent who was sent on
two missions in occupied France. Szabo was captured by the German army,
interrogated, tortured, and deported to Ravensbrück concentration camp in
Germany, where she was executed (Wikipedia).
My first encounter with her was the video game she inspired: Velvet Assassin. She was a remarkable woman and a true hero. There
were thousands if not millions of such heroes fighting in World War II but not
one was a Nazi. She fought an enemy that had killed her husband and that was
trying to invade her homeland. The Nazis fought not for Germany but for an evil
dictator and his evil ideology. Thus, by putting themselves in the service of
evil, their actions and the consequences of those actions were evil as were
they. Those who serve evil, be it an individual or an ideology, become evil.
Intentions and
motives Are Irrelevant
Almost all evil behavior is caused by evil men.
In most cases their intentions and motives are evil. Numerous countries in the
world are controlled by such men, evil men. But even if their intentions and motives
were good, they would still be evil men. The only two criteria for good and evil
that matter are actions and consequences. I’m sure Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam War)
and George Bush (Iraq War) thought they had the best of motives with their disastrous wars. Yet they
were responsible for commanding men (most forced into the Vietnam War via the draft) to
perform evil actions that resulted in the injury, destruction, and death. Thus,
Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush are evil men. Key here is that both men acted
aggressively. Elizabeth Szabo’s actions were defensive. The two presidents said
as much, but it was clear to everyone that they were lying; neither Vietnam nor
Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Most important, the motivation of the two
presidents was ideological, the Judeo-Christian ideology. Szabo’s motivation was
personal. Her homeland had been bombed, her fellow citizens injured or killed,
and her husband killed. The principle here is to do no harm unless harmed.
What
is true for leaders is true for ideologies. Ideologies that encourage men to
engage in actions that harm others for only ideological reasons are evil
ideologies. And the men who invent such ideologies are evil men. Most heinous
of all is the ideology that declares non-believers to be an abomination to God
and enemies of God. It is not only heinous; it’s idiocy to believe that God
would be offended by non-believers. Such a view of God is primitive similar to
the way the common ancient Greeks understood the Olympian gods (though most
were good and none were as evil as the Jewish deity) as oppose to view of the
Greek philosophers such as the Stoics who believed God was a creative substance.
Of
course, as Nietzsche tells us, the motivation of the ancient Jews was
resentment toward pagans, especially toward those who had created impressive
civilizations, such as the Egyptians. In other words, the Jews deified their
hatred. It is interesting that Jews invented themselves as God’s chosen
people just after leaving Egypt. The First Dynasty period of Egypt was about
3000 BC. The so-called Jewish Exodus occurred about 1300 BC, meaning that Egypt
had been a great civilization seventeen centuries before the Jews invented
their ego-enhancing religion. The first pyramids had already existed for
thirteen centuries. It’s not surprising that the Jews would have an inferiority
complex. So, instead of creating their own civilization, which would be
impossible for a tribe of pastoral nomads to accomplish, they imagined, as if having smoked too much Kerouac cannabis, themselves as God’s chosen people, thus the most important people in the Universe
and create an ideology to verify the fact. Judeo-Christians and Judeo-Muslims emerged
in a similar manner among the proletariat of Rome and the Hejaz of Arabia.
Walter
Mitty syndrome is a mental state of low self-esteem remedied by escaping into
an ego enhancing fantasy. For youngsters, it is a means of exploring ways of
self-realization. For adults it can be an indicator of dissatisfaction with the
realization of one’s life. But I’m talking about individuals, not societies. Such
fantasies need not be harmful as long as they remain in the realm of fantasy.
Today, video-games players can become heroes by killing make-believe enemies. The problems with the ego-enhancing fantasies
of the Abrahamic religions are two. First, the make-believe enemies being
killed are real people. Second is the belief that no moral crime is committed because
the killing is doing God’s will.
Two
characteristics that fuel the Walter Mitty syndrome of the Abrahamic religions are
resentment (envy) and narcissism. In the narcissist low self-esteem creates an
unbearable internal conflict very often resulting in hatred and anger toward
people who are successful be they pagans or bourgeoisie. They are declared
evil according to some impersonal, made-up criterion to protect ego from the
realization that it is engaging in self-deception—such as the people envied are
the enemies of God or property-loving demons. Day dreams and video games are
temporary. Eventually, the dreamer or player returns to reality. Not so with
ideologies. Once programmed the believer remains in the alternate reality
created from the ideology. And like replicating robots they replicate into the
future.
Myself
I’m
an America. I don’t belong to any ethnic group. My ancestors were farmers,
their only roots were the earth. They were Christians but being Christians meant only getting together once a week and helping neighbors when they needed
help. Most said prayers at meals. Religion was a personal matter except on
Sunday. The church was also good for bringing people together for births,
marriages, and funerals. They wore no religious paraphernalia. Women wore
dresses; girls wore shorts when playing sports. Overalls were popular with farmers;
jeans were worn by cowboys or by guys and gals just whenever. There was no God
talk. That was left to the preacher. Men talked about the farm, weather, commodity
prices, and machines. Women talked about their children and family and about
the goings on in the town. Young people were most interested in one another and
school and sports. Everyone loved horses and dogs. God was rarely discussed
because he was taken for granted.
Four
things saved me from being programmed by an ideology, religious or otherwise. My
parents were not churchgoers. They endured the Great Depression and World War
II so probably did some praying. When their prayers weren’t answered, they must
have concluded that no one was listening and that humans had to rely on
themselves, as they did during the depression and the war. Second was the
Vietnam War. It was an evil war begun by stupid politicians, but it taught
young people to think for themselves, which is the first step in becoming free.
And free thinking led me to existentialism, third, which is essentially an
anti-ideology philosophy. Don’t believe those who claim to be religious existentialists or Marxist existentialists. They are cowards. Existentialists
were not my heroes. My philosophical heroes were the philosophers who were
skeptical to the core. Socrates comes to mind. The last influence was the music
of the anti-war era, country-western, folk, and rock-n-roll. The music seemed
to make just being alive worthwhile in spite of all the bullshit. When one
leaves the church, temple, or synagogue, gets off the prayer rug, walks out on
the cabal meetings with its secret handshakes, or cuts class to get some fresh
air, what one discovers is himself or herself and the world that awaits. Life
teaches the truth; ideology distorts the truth or abandons its altogether.
Fortunately,
America offered me refuge from the mind imprisoning web of ideology. America
never produced any great philosophies or philosophers, but it did produce some
great independent thinkers. Favorites of mine: Thomas Paine, Black Hawk, Nathaniel
Hawthorne, James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville, Henry David Thoreau, Walt
Whitman, Henry Adams, Mary Austin, Kate Chopin, Stephen Crane, Emily Dickinson,
Theodore Dreiser, Hamlin Garland, Frank Norris, E.E. Cummings, William Faulkner,
Ernest Hemingway, Oliver La Farge, Edith Wharton, Edward Abbey, James Agee, Edward
Albee, Isaac Asimov, Wendell Berry, Ray Bradbury, William Gibson, A.B. Guthrie Jr., Ken Kesey, Joseph Wood Krutch, Ursula K. Le Guin, Marge Piercy, Sylvia
Plath, Carl Sagan, J.D. Salinger, Mari
Sandoz, Leslie Marmon Silko, Luther Standing Bear, Black Elk, John Steinbeck, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Paolo Bacigalupi, Robert
Penn Warren, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Philip K. Dick, Chris McCandless, Jon Krakauer,
and Jack Kerouac, most of all Jack Kerouac whose novel The Town and the City is pure American.
That’s
America—transcending the ideological, the cult, the collective. Celebrating the
individual and just being alive in a glorious, too often tragic, world. You
have to find your own books and your own way—but never ever rely on a single
book. A single book is trap that will enslave you. The really cool thing about
all those books is that they can’t be patched into a unified ideology. They
resist the Single Vision. They won’t all fit into one ideological box. Combined
they are anti-ideology. Life is more than black and white. It’s a rainbow of
experiences and meanings. They gather within a single self to become a unique
view and experience of the world. I am an American, which means I am a conglomerate. My ideas have been gathered not from prophets but from ordinary people. Some of
whom were writers; most were not and will never be found on any list of any
kind. I am legion, a composite of unique, disparate individuals, points of view,
and experiences. I have no loyalty except to my family, friends, and neighbors.
I have no allegiance to any single idea and no ideology whatsoever.
Norman Podhoretz, Hater of Jack
Kerouac and American Culture
When only sixteen years old Norman
Podhoretz “Godfather of Neoconservatism” was a
college student whose “political views were Marxist.” First a Marxist then a neoconservative.
His was a life lived in ideological boxes. That’s fine with me as long as he
doesn’t think he knows best how Americans should live and what wars their
government should engage in. But he did think he knew both as a
first-generation U.S. citizen. Can one who disassociates himself from an
America truly be an American? Kerouac didn’t like war nor did he believe he
should tell others how to live their lives, and he had deep American roots in
family, community, and work.
Podhoretz
hates Kerouac. Add hating Kerouac to hating America because Jack was %100
America, not a fake American, not a paper American. Podhoretz wrote, “[1] Being
against what the Beat generation stands for has to do with denying that incoherence
is superior to precision; [2] that ignorance is superior to knowledge; [3] that
the exercise of mind and discrimination is a form of death. [4] It has to do
with fighting the notion that sordid acts of violence are justifiable so long
as they are committed in the name of ‘instinct.’ [5] It even has to do with
fighting the poisonous glorification of the adolescent in American popular
culture. [6] It has to do, in other words, with one’s attitude toward
intelligence itself (Fuller 37).
1. "Precision," like jackboot precision, like Nazi precision? Or is it the precision
of having one’s mind locked in an ideological box and moving the pieces within
the box about with precision? Or perhaps the precision of smart bombs dropped
by people who are very precise, though not wise, on people who live ordinary,
less technical, less precise lives?
2. Weird coming from a person who is a
member of a tribe of make-believers. No, Norman, what Kerouac was saying is
that experience is superior to knowledge, and usually a requirement for
knowledge. In a moment of unwisdom Plato thought knowledge (represented by the
forms, disembodied ideas) was superior to experience, and as a result he got it
all wrong as Aristotle had to point out. Experiencing life is superior to
having knowledge about life—especially if it comes from an ideology, which is not
knowledge. A man who has never loved can have no knowledge of
love. And using the word “ignorance” is simply an ad hominem slur indicating
that your understanding of Kerouac is ignorance. You never got out of the
ideological box long enough to experience life. Muhammad got it right when he
called Jews “people of the book.” The book of one sort or another has been
their box forever.
3. If you weren’t blinded by hatred you would know that
Kerouac exercised his mind plenty. His writings are still immensely popular;
yours never were. That is because unlike you he wrote about life. What is death
to the mind are Jewish, Marxist, and neoconservative ideologies—and death to the body as
well, literally. You belonged to all three.
4. Acts of violence such as boxing,
football, and other contact sports expressions of physical instinct (we have
bodies by the way), even random acts of violence are less heinous than that violence encouraged and committed
by political ideologues like yourself called war. I supposed the Jewish
slaughter of pagans described in the Old Testament was justified in the way the
Israeli Skynet bombing of Gaza was justified.
5. You don’t get it, Norman. Popular
culture of adolescent American, especially during the 50s and 60s when America
was militarily involved in the clashes of two Jewish ideologies, Judeo-Christianity
and Judeo-Marxism, was magnificent. You didn’t get because you skipped
adolescence by becoming a college student and Marxist at sixteen planning the
overthrow of the America you weren’t even part of and that you hated.
6. You
confused intelligence with ideology. Ideology is the negation of intelligence—which
is freedom of thought. During the Hellenistic era your people hunted down and
killed intellectually and culturally freethinking Jews sympathetic to Greek
culture that was infinitely superior to the Jewish cult that had priests but no
philosophers, scientists, or artists. I’m sorry but Philo was an intellectual
joke—though he had sense enough to appreciate Greek philosophy. Your people had Jesus crucified because he was a free thinker and a
better, more humane thinker than the Essenes and cruel Pharisees. Your people banned,
shunned, ostracized, expelled, and excommunicated Spinoza because he was a free
thinker and declared him to be evil, when in fact he got right what your people
have always got wrong. Your people’s ideology created the Judeo-Christianity,
Judeo-Islam, and Judeo-Marxism, three of the most intellectually oppressive
organizations the world has ever known. Your people more than any other have
been against intelligence. Your people didn’t even learn to think until the
twentieth century, when Europeans taught them to think.
Fuller
says that Podhoretz condemned the Beats as “fundamental sources of the West’s
moral demise” (193), overlooking the fact that Judaism destroyed Western
civilization with its Judeo-Christian ideology and the Beats having never killed
a Palestinian mother or her baby. He blames the Beat Generation for “increased
violent crime, high divorce rates, high school dropout rates, illegitimacy,
adultery” and a dozen other cultural failures (Fuller 193-194) but makes no
mention of the Vietnam War that caused young people to reject the values of
their society. And the war continued on and on and as always Jewish ideology
was involved. It’s not surprising young people opted for carpe diem approach to
life given the adults had failed them. Yet, none of this is surprising. The
Beats were essentially pagans. And the counter-couture was very much like those
Jews who decided to take a break from their oppressive religious ideology and
celebrate life represented by a golden calf. Finally, let’s not forget the
bloodshed caused by the Jewish ideologies: Judaism, Judeo-Christianity,
Judeo-Islam, Judeo-Marxism, and Judeo-neoconservatism.
Kerouac Knew America:
Past, Present, and Future
Oh yeah, Norman, you overlooked the following passage in Kerouac’s The Town and the City. Peter’s, that is, Jack Kerouac’s, father, angrily laments America’s decline: “The country’s going straight to hell if something doesn’t happen. Some mighty funny things have been going on in the past ten years. Like I say, they’ve overturned the cup and they’re trying to drain the country dry of whatever it used to have that made it strong. It’s all these foreign ideas! I call it gall if nothing else, that they should come over here from Europe,” he roared, “and get themselves jobs and then turn around and tell American citizens who they should vote for and how they should spend their money, and on top of all that do their damnedest to change our form of government and economy after they themselves lived for centuries like beggars in the old countries. Why the hell do they think we fought all our wars—for the fun of fighting? Or just so they could come here and bring Europe back again? But don’t you see,” minced the old man savagely, “they’re cultured and we’re not, they know what should be done, they read Karl Marx or whatever his name is and they read this one and that one, while we’re just a bunch of ignorant blockheads who just do nothing but work” (Penguin Classics 407).
Then the mother speaks up. “I don’t know,” said Marguerite Martin with a wistful air, “but the best kind of life, as far as I’m concerned, was the life we used to live on my grandfather’s farm in New Hampshire...” “On a Saturday morning your Aunt Alice and I plucked turnip and cabbage and carrots and potatoes and peas fresh out of the garden and made a big stew—oh, a delicious stew, with all the vegetables still juicy from the ground....” The father, George Martin, responds “I also went fishing with the old man [the grandfather] at the creek, remember?” And at night they made molasses candy, in the morning the cows were milked and a “pail full of thick cream you cut with a knife” was brought in, brisket and eggs were cooked for breakfast and eaten with homemade bread with cream and “Vermont maple syrup.” Ducks were shot, plucked, and broiled over a fire.
Marguerite concludes, “They [her still farming uncles] work hard all right, but they get rewarded for their work, they live, and they’re happy and healthy, and they’re independent, no one can tell them what to do. You can have your Communists and your neurotics and all that stuff, but give me a good old church-going farmer for a man, a real man... New York’s all right... for shows and stores and excitement and a lot of people, but when it comes to living the way people were intended to live, give me the country and the small town” (408-409).
Even Peter/Jack Kerouac has his own revelation triggered by an old lady’s remembering Missouri in 186O: “These places and raw simplicities had now gone into the night, far beyond the incomprehensible sprawl, the cancerous smoky suburbs, the street-demented scab and wreckage of New York City and its outflung Chicagos, Cincinnatis, Milwaukees, Detroits, and Clevelands—so easily forgotten in the turmoils of city-time and city-talk and city-life and city-sarcasm and city-weariness, in all the Brooklyns and Babylons, Baltimores and Gomorrahs, Gazas and Philadelphias, and the pitted and blasted black Pittsburghs with all their Toledos and Bridgeports, ruined Newarks and Jersey Cities and the satellites thereof, the smoke-smothered Hobokens and Akrons and Garys of the land.” That is pretty much America today, worse with the self-loathing, hatred, and the burning and looting of cities. In the old woman’s voice Peter/Jack Kerouac heard “his own mother’s voice, the voices of his grandfathers and grandmothers, the voices he wanted to hear again, the voices that soothed in a harsh world, in a world of real struggle and true hope” (428). The old lady would die a week later, as America has in our time.
Not surprising that New York City was the crystal ball in which the father (George Martin/Leo Kerouac) and Peter/Jack Kerouac saw America’s decline and fall. The passages take place at the end of World War II. Today we know that the father's prognosis was correct. The country has gone to hell and the cup has been drained dry of what made it strong. And now the intruders come not as Marxists from Europe but as proletariat from the third-world countries. It wasn’t the beatniks or hippies who ruined America. It has been corrupt, stupid politicians who were interested in furthering their careers and realizing their pet ideologies and who didn’t give a damn about protecting Americans and preserving America. And, of course, the America-hating Marxists from the old country provided the ideology of destruction. Today, invading proletariat from failed states are finishing the job of destroying America started by New York Marxists. Don't blame Kerouac, Norman. Look in the mirror.
In the end, the father dies of cancer. In agony he laments “there are so many things I could have done!... If I had done the right thing... By gosh, I wish I could start all over again!” Those words could serve as an epitaph for America. If the country had only done things right—morally right. But it too has been afflicted with cancer, multiple cancers, the cancers of greed, corruption, ideology, and stupidity. Now it’s too late for America as well. And what will emerge from the ashes won’t be pretty but grotesque.
When Peter/Jack Kerouac addresses his dead father he says, “Pa! Are you dead, for God’s sake? Pa!... You poor old man, you poor old man!” Today, a sad, confused, mournful, patriotic American could say something similar: “America! Are you dead, for God’s sake? You poor old country, my poor old homeland. You’re dead, aren’t you.”
Jack Kerouac: Lover of life
Names
mattered to Kerouac. Reading him one encounters one name after another of
people he believed should never be forgotten but are forgotten in the sweep of
time. He knew them and loved them even when he didn’t like them. They all were
who they were in the colorful, mysterious ebb and flow of existence. Al Buckle,
Charley Low, Gerardo, Enrique, John J. Coppertwang, Charley W. Jones, Carmelita
O, and so on. Sometimes, most of the
time, there were no names just descriptions: girls throwing flowers, children
playing, men smoking, working, talking, old timers sitting. Negros, white men, Latinos.
He loved equally the names of streets, neighborhoods, and towns. They are where
life is to be found and his mind whirled with life. Names mattered because Kerouac
knew they and he and everything would eventually disappear in the void. No writer gets closer to life with words than Kerouac does. To Kerouac each noun, adjective, and verb was a memorial.
I recall Kerouac sitting in a church contemplating the void. Jack was a modern-day Jesus who had nothing to offer except love. He couldn’t offer God or life eternal because the almighty was the Void and there is no forever in the Void. So, he loved life, every particle of it. “Happiness consists in realizing that it is all a great strange dream” full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. He traveled life with a deep sense of sympathy and nostalgia. He felt nostalgia for that which had been lost and for that which would soon be gone. The invisible sack he carried everywhere was filled with memories. Each person and every thing mattered to Kerouac, so he would put each person and every thing he encountered into that sack. A few he would put in his books. Every person and every thing mattered because they are here today and gone tomorrow. Unlike the Jewish ideologies of hate his vision of the world was inspired by love and was humane and kindly. He was about life, not about God, ideology, conquest, killing, ethnic cleansing, or marching in lockstep to some religious or secular ideology.
There
is the story Kerouac told “in which his mother and father were walking together
in a Jewish neighborhood on the Lower East Side of New York. He recalled
"a whole bunch of rabbis walking arm in arm ... teedah- teedah – teedah
... and they wouldn't part for this Christian man and his wife, so my father
went POOM! and knocked a rabbi right in the gutter” (“Kerouac,” Wikipedia). The rabbis thought they own
the sidewalk, just like their ideologies believe they own the world. Why should
they move for a gentile woman? We are God’s people chosen to tell the rest of
humanity how to live. Kerouac knew we lived in a wonderland filled with beauty
and mystery. Even the ugly possessed a terrible beauty. Each thing, each
creature, each person was meaningful to him. His values were rooted in experience
and feeling, not ideology, not some book like the Bible, Quran, Das Kapital, and Mein Kampf. In a church in Mexico he sees the truth. First Jesus on
cross. He thinks “had I been there I would have yelled ‘Stop it’ and got
crucified too.” Crucifixion is the way of the Judaisms. All that is unique,
free, and wonderful must be crushed under the wheels of the Jewish ideological
Juggernaut. Yet crucifixion is also the way of life. In the end, we all die.
He knew that too.
Kerouac
followed the advice of two Jews infinitely wiser than Podhoretz, phenomenologist
Edmund Husserl and astronomer Carl Sagan, both of whom rejected mythologies and
ideologies to return to things themselves. For Husserl the return was to things
close at hand. For Sagan it was investigating the origin and evolution of the
Universe, instead of studying the Torah and visiting the Wailing Wall. It was a
matter of leaving the temple, church, or mosque and experiencing the world at
large. In fact, Podhoretz’s condemnation of Kerouac is a condemnation of the
most accurate, sensible book in the Old Testament, the only one worth reading,
the one that has inspired endless Kerouacs and Hemingways for generations: Ecclesiastes,
written during the Hellenistic period and full of Greek wisdom, in particular
Epicureanism, reminiscent of the sixties in the U.S. so despised by Podhoretz.
For
example: “All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is
not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing” (1:8). Could it be
that expresses the mindset of American youth after World War II and the Korean
War and during the Vietnam War and the Cold War? Adults will never get it right,
certainly not evil politicians, so let’s party. Better free love than
slaughter.
And
“In my vain life I have seen everything; there is a righteous man who perishes
in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evil
doing” (7:15). Such as slavery, Native Americans being extinguished, Jews being
systematically slaughtered with great intellect and precision (precision was
what the Germans are all about), Palestinians being displaced, Vietnamese villagers
being napalmed, the people of Gaza being bombed, and God is nowhere to be found.
So what is the point of believing in him especially when he encourages carnage
in the Old Testament, New Testament (Book of Revelation), and Quran?
Thus,
“There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and find
enjoyment in his toil” (2:24). Might that be the conclusion the youth
generation came to? “Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine
with a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do” (10:7).
Apparently, God also approves of what wicked men do, and that is why we don’t
need his approval.
“If
a man lives many years, let him rejoice in them all; but let him remember that
the days of darkness will be many. All that comes is vanity” (11:8). And Kerouac
remembered both though he did not live many years. And Podhoretz learned
nothing from the preacher or from life though he has lived many years. And what
about the drinking, smoking, drug taking, and endless sex? The tragedy of Kerouac is that he too was pulled into the maelstrom of decadence that overtook America, as his On the Road attests. Yet he gave plenty of warning even his own life. He saw himself as an experiment. He gives us repeated warnings about not overdoing drinking, drugs, smoking, etc., such as the alcoholic “Crazy Polock” who “drreenk and drreenk” and gets sick and loses his job. Or one might end up dead in the morning or shorten his or her life, as was the case for Kerouac. Kerouac teaches how to live and how not to live. And how was he to know everything as a young man just beginning that turbulent voyage that would be his life?
Kerouac Teaches Us about Life.
The Jewish ideologies teach only about death, essentially causing others to die. And who are the movers and shakers of decadence today, sin city Hollywood, always, and equally influential the super-decadent super-rich tech & media moguls. Kerouac offers his life as a warning. He saw himself as an experiment. He gives us repeated warnings about not overdoing drinking, drugs, smoking, etc., such as the alcoholic “Crazy Polock” who “drreenk and drreenk” and gets sick and loses his job. Or one might end up dead in the morning or shorten his or her life, as was the case for Kerouac. Kerouac teaches how to live and how not to live. And how was he to know everything as a young man just beginning that turbulent voyage that would be his life. Kerouac teaches us about life. The Jewish ideologies teach only about death, essentially causing others to die.Kerouac offers his
life as a warning. He saw himself as an experiment. He gives us repeated
warnings about not overdoing drinking, drugs, smoking, etc., such as the
alcoholic “Crazy Polock” who “drreenk and drreenk” and gets sick and loses his
job. Or one might end up dead in the morning or shorten his or her life, as was
the case for Kerouac. Kerouac teaches how to live and how not to live. And how
was he to know everything as a young man just beginning that turbulent voyage
that would be his life? Kerouac teaches us about life. The Jewish ideologies
teach only about death, essentially causing others to die.
