The Roots of the Biden-Harris Marxist Overthrow of America

This essay explores the motivation of the Biden-Harris Marxist overthrow of America. This is important because the election of Joe Biden and Afro-Jamaican-Indian Kamala Harris brought to fruition a Marxist revolution led by the Democratic Party that seeks not to change America but to destroy it just as the Marxists destroyed Russia. It is a greater threat than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor because like a cancer the enemy exists within and now has achieved political control of the nation. The ideological motivation is the Jewish Ideology Marxism. The psychological motivation is resentment resulting from a psychological conflict between an empirically justified inferiority complex and Walter-Mitty narcissism. First the issue of anti-Semitism, which this essay will be accused of.

Prologue

An important aspect of the question concerning anti-Semitism 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—mostly white—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 19^th 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 authority 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 religious ideology 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 were never aggressed by pagans because of their religious ideology but by the ideological offspring of Judaism—Christians and Muslims. In fact, the first anti-Semites were Jews, the writers of the New Testament.

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 via 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.

In the Jews’ Own Words: Book of Exodus

In his YouTube article “The Origins of the Habiru” Seth Fleishman argues that the Habiru and Hebrew are one and the same. He also says,  “The pharaoh’s repeatedly referred to them [Habiru/Hebrew] as an unstable element in society and if you read the start of Exodus that is exactly what the pharaoh said is you have these people growing and uncontrollable.” In Exodus we’re told, “Pharaoh’s officials said to him, ‘How long will this man be a snare to us? Let the people go, so that they may worship the Lord their God. Do you not yet realize that Egypt is ruined?’” (10:7). Interesting point given that is exactly what Jewish ideologies do to endless nations.  Next the Jews bring their havoc to Canaan.

The pharaoh dearly wants to get rid of the Jews, saying, “The Lord be with you—if I let you go, along with your women and children! Clearly you are bent on evil” (10:10). Yet Yahweh, torturer, mass murderer, and mischief-maker repeatedly changes the pharaoh’s heart: “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.” Why? In Yahweh’s words: “The Lord had said to Moses, ‘Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt’” (11:9). Wonders = sickness and slaughter. Yahweh has afflicted the Egyptians with endless plagues, but he desires to slaughter the first born—human and non-human. Big question: How can anyone worship such a monster?

More to the point of this essay, worshipping a God that hates all people except his own can only lead to making enemies that can only results in anti-Semitism. Second, worshipping a God that tortures and slaughter allows one’s own people to torture and slaughter with a clear conscience. What’s good enough for God is good enough for us! Finally, Yahweh is a Jewish ideological invention, an us-versus-them ideology, one that will morph into Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Islam and into the secular religion Marxism.  

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 most 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 the Jew 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 do 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 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, i.e., programmed by a Jewish 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 bloody 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 are a different breed of men (and women in today’s American political arena) than the common people. They 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.

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. Today in the U.S. it’s the followers of the Biden-Harris neo-Marxism against the old America.

The Communist Manifesto

Marxism is an us-versus-them Jewish ideology that calls for conquest, the overcoming of all non-Communist nations. 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. Recently, we’ve seen this scenario take place in the U.S. Revolutionary mobs attacking police, looting stores, and burning streets. What the Biden-Harris neo-Marxists have in mind as a post-America utopia that is anything but utopian.

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). That is certainly true in America. One camp, the presently in power, seeks to demolish America; the other seeks to preserve it. In Biden-Harris neo-Marxist agenda the bourgeoisie, the most productive segment of the population remains the enemy of the people but is color coded as white bourgeoisie. Thus the white bourgeoisie versus the red revolutionaries. During the Marxist takeover of Russia the  anti-communist forces were the white army that fought against the reds, the communist Bolsheviks. The red revolutionaries wanted to overthrow Russia by cleansing it of it cultural and historical identity. The new nation would become national factory, much like today’s China, in which citizens were reduced to the status of workers. Their identity was determined by the ideology, rather than by history, culture, or individual self-realization. They were produced in assembly-line fashion, each modified for a particular task that would serve the needs of the state.

Marxist ideology seeks to turn humanity into robots, the proletariat no longer working for cash but for the deified State. The robots all think the same because they have all been programmed by the same ideology. Under communist rule uniqueness disappears: all are workers for the State. For Marxism the old cultures must disappear to be replaced by a rational, mechanized universal culture. Imagine a society managed and operated in a way similar to a corporation like Amazon. The old faiths and ways of living must disappear. In Biden-Harris neo-Marxism those old ways are associated with white society and culture. The goal is to transform America into a society like that of Communist China and North Korea but one in which the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie  are white Americans. White Americans seek to preserve their homeland, and the neo-Marxists want it to disappear.

Capitalistic societies have improved without Communism, without Marxism. The capitalists were by and large white Westerners. And 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.” The neo-Marxists make revolution all about  skin color and Western civilization: whites are inherently evil and people of color are inherently good. Western civilization, including America and Europe, is inherently evil. Non-Western cultures, i.e., non-white cultures, are inherently good. The neo-Marxist Biden-Harris administration seek to create a state in which the controllers are either people of color or white collaborators who have repudiated themselves and their fellow Caucasians. From the neo-Marxist perspective they are sinners and whiteness is their original sin. They cannot be cleansed of their sinfulness but only make amends for their sinfulness by supporting the revolution.

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). And who were the hated bourgeois inventors and producers of these technological advancements? Hated White people, at least until Asian nations became Westernized during the closing decades of the twentieth century. Better those commodities be unaffordable? And why else are the barbarians flooding into Western capitalist nations that neo-Marxists consider inferior to the failed states being fled because the Western nations are the nations of white people? The invaders want progress. They want civilization. They want economic opportunity. Marx says that the bourgeoisie “has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life” (213). The same redneck, country bumpkins hated by Hollywood, the propaganda wing of the neo-Marxists. 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. And the Romantic Movement was the product of white, Western societies. No wonder the urban proletariat of Russia had to slaughter the peasants who didn’t want Marxist Communism destroying their way of life. To neo-Marxists the great cities are the utopias of America—like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Albuquerque, Miami, Dayton, Oakland, Daytona Beach, Shreveport, Little Rock, etc. listed among USA Today Money's 50 cities where the American dream has soured. (“These are the worst cities to live in based on quality of life.”) The urban decline in America has accelerated with the neo-Marxists-political nihilists’ takeover of the nation. The situation reminds me of the last stanza of the Joe Cocker song “Now That The Magic Has Gone”: 

Now that the magic has gone

You just wanna walk away

Nothing left to say, anyway

Now that the magic has gone

There's no sense in holding on

Baby, now that the magic is gone

Now that the magic has gone

You just wanna walk away

Nothing left to say 

“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 Marx 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. Famous People: Virologist list 34 of the most of the most renown virologists, both men and women, including  Jonas Salk, Robert Gallo, Hilary Koprowski, Luc Montagnier, Albert Sabin, David Baltimore, and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and Marion Koopmans. Among the list was only one non-white David Ho. Still, to the neo-Marxist Biden-Harris cult these white scientists are evil because they are white.

Marx 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. That is what the neo-Marxist Biden-Harris cult demands. And that is what Jewish ideologies—Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Marxism—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 much of humanity are the puppets of Jewish ideologies, and now the neo-puppets of the neo-Marxist ideology are seeking revolution in the U.S.

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). The Biden-Harris cult feels the same about white Americans, who have become the neo-bourgeoisie of the Biden-Harris cult. Thus white Americans must be exterminated just as the pagans were exterminated by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And infamous communist leaders such as Joseph-Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel-Castro, Kim Jong-un, and China’s present Communist leadership would replace the bourgeoisie of every color. 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 Biden-Harris neo-Marxist cult seeks to exterminate only one color of the bourgeoisie: white. Hitler changed the law to legally get rid of Jews. Biden-Harris changed the law to get rid of white Americans. The former used extermination. The latter is using minoritization, a disappearing trick to make white Americans disappear in a flood of non-white refugees, it’s the drowning of whiteness in America. All that is needed is corruption of the law or simply not enforcing the law.

“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. The Biden-Harris spin on the abolition of property and the abolition of individuality is the abolition of white Americans. That’s what neo-Marxist open-borders movement is all about in America and other Western nations. To make whites disappear via the process of minoritization. Actually, globally whites are already a minority. But that’s not enough for the anti-white neo-Marxists. They want whites to disappear like a sugar cube in a cup of black coffee.

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 article). 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 the 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 the 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, for the Squad (no white Americans allowed) and the Biden-Harris neo-Marxist cult it’s white bourgeois Americans. Anti-white Americans are allowed to thrive because their power becomes the power of the revolution. 

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 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. As already noted, 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, 21 more than the 13 U.S. service members killed during the recent Kabul airport attack as a result of President Biden’s ineptitude. 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 believed the Jews are the 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.

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 article.

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). That is until Biden gave the Taliban $80 billion plus in weapons. 

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 3^rd 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 article). 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 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. Killing was part of life. Most Americans were farmers and they didn't buy their meat at a supermarket. 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 primeval origins and pre-civilized state of mind  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 himself a half slave to drudgery. Dr. Norcom was well off. A slave prepared his meals. I considered that perhaps 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. This relationship is described in many scholarly books on Native American tribes, but two popular works 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 its being God’s creation. 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 this notion of God is 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 it 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 is one cosmic purpose humans can give themselves that is not a matter of invention: to be intelligent, appreciative observers. Their cosmic role would be to observe, understand, and appreciate. Because the reality is that humans are nothing more 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 life's simple truth. This seems more the case 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 previous 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 article). 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 due 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. Tribalism continues and 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 an outlaw version of capitalism. There are bankers and bank robbers. Both are capitalists 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 thought to be 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, the process 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, and later 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 article). 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. In Afghanistan 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.” In any case, Soros is another Jews who has a big plan for humanity because he knows best how others should live. He follows in the footsteps of a very long ideological tradition.

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. Clearly the threat here is that the philosophy of this movement (and it is a single movement) is one of violence and nihilism. It seeks to undermine Western civilization. These are Bazarov radicals. Historically, the Bazarovs won when the Marxist revolution succeeded in Russia and transformed Russia 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 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 were organic nations. They were both wholesome and appealing because they were 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 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). If you want to see the future that the Biden-Harris cult has in store for America, watch the movie Sicario. Their goal is to transform America into an American version of Ciudad Juárez. It is the third-worlding of America, a nation in which no one except the very rich is safe, a nation under the influence of Hispanic drug cartels and corrupt politicians.

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. 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 4^th 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 been 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 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, 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. Daydreams 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. 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, 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/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/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/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/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.”

The Dissolution of America

The father’s death brings together the scattered old friends, fellow workers, and family members. He did not hold them together but united, linked them together, served as the hub of their relationships. As long as he lived, they shared the linking values of time, place, history, and flesh, importantly not ideology. At the time of the funeral the story offers an elegiac overview of family members, families of friends, fellow workers and neighbors, and of shared times and places. This was the old America. Once the father is buried links kept alive by his existence dissolve. Among the children this process had already begun with the siren call of big cities, other places, and the disruption caused by the war.

This breaking away has always been a facet of American society because the spirit of individualism is a dominant theme of American culture. Americans have always been a people who have left home to pursue new opportunities and experiences; this too was rooted in the concrete, not in ideology. Yet, the spirit of adventure and opportunity competed spatially with the commitment to the family. America is a big country, but there were always letters and later phone calls. Today there is social media but it’s different—corrupted by decadence, politics, ideology, and commercialism. Because it is public communication, not just personal, it encourages exhibitionism and voyeurism. The death of the father breaks the hub that united even at a distance everyone who knew him.

That breakage can be interpreted as a metaphor for what is happening to America, an idea representing a place, history, people, and culture that became an ideal that unified the American people. Became because that wasn’t always the case. When reading Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House on the Prairie, one finds no mention of national homeland. Indians are an object of both fear and fascination but not hatred. Soldiers are not presented as heroes but as an arm of government. Family, friends, and neighbors were all that matted. I don’t know precisely when American nationalism began to emerge, but certainly it was an idea entertained by politicians and commercial wheeler-dealers before it reached  homesteaders. However, the threat of Marxism and communism intensified the nationalistic mindset—threats that we now know were real and were more internal than external. And with the rise of nationalism came ideology, not from the people but from politicians. And the ideology corrupted what which was natural—rooted in family, soil, factory, and history. Ideology is an abstraction, always a dangerous one in its ability to manipulate and control people. 

Cracks and Fissures Led to a Broken America

We know that much. One resulted in the Civil War. But now America has been broken beyond repair. These fatal cracks and fissures emerged with the Vietnam War and the South’s vicious resistance to integration—not allowing black Americans (the distant offspring of slaves) the freedom to live, work, shop, and attend school wherever they wish. Hammer blows recently began once Marxists began to acquire control of the entertainment and news media and control of the Democratic Party. Powerful social media tech corporations came into existence with an anti-America Marxist bias. Conventional corporations took the side of the Marxists out of fear of boycotts and being publically condemned as racist. Essentially, this was the trashing of America, some or most of which it brought upon itself.

Traditional values are no longer enough to unite a fractured, corrupted, splintered population. The onslaught has come from multiple directions, not simply political and ideological. In modern America one’s commitment to family, home, and community has grown weaker. Families dissolve or never congealed in the first place. Children came into the world without a family, just a mother. In addition, attachments and loyalties to ethnic and political groups grew stronger and replaced for many the attachment and loyalty to America especially with the influx of immigrants whose loyalties are to homelands elsewhere. Most recently Marxist Democrats have encouraged severing ties with America. They offer nothing in its place. The party has become the lords of chaos fueled by hatred. Theirs is not a revolution with a unifying goal in mind, some kind of utopia. Instead the goal is a multicultural third-worlding of America, which has been achieved in most big cities such as Los Angeles:  Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 47.5%, Non-Hispanic Whites: 29.4%, and Black or African American: 9.8% (Wikipedia, “Demographics of Los Angeles”). The result is revealed in a YouTube video article titled “Los Angeles Gang Capital of the World.” See website below.

Are White Supremacists really the Problem?

“After controlling for the number of gang members reported in each jurisdiction, the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey revealed that Hispanics and African-Americans constituted the majority of gang members. The following aggregate percentages [of U.S. population] were reported nationally: “Hispanic—44 percent, African-American—35 percent, Caucasian—14 percent, Asian—5 percent, and other—2 percent" (1996 National Youth Gang Survey, “Race/Ethnicity). The survey was taken two decades ago, but it contents remain accurate.

The prison population reflects that: “From the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018 black males accounted for 34% [but only 12% of the U.S. population] of the total male prison population, white males 29% [but 57.8% of the U.S. population], and Hispanic males 24% [18.7%of the U.S. population] (Wikipedia, “Incarceration in the United States”). It must be kept in mind that “According to the 2020 Census, Non-Latino whites [Caucasians] make up 57.8% of the country's population,” a decrease from 63.7% in 2010. For 2020, the Hispanic or Latino population was the second-largest racial or ethnic group, comprising 18.7% of the total population, blacks 12.1% (United States Census Bureau, “2020 U.S. Population More Racially and Ethnically Diverse than Measured in 2010”).

Summary:

Percentage of prison population:

Black males 34%

Hispanic males 24%

White 29%

 

Percentage of total U.S. population:

Black males 12%

Hispanic males 18.7%

White 57.8% 

The Marxist left argues that blacks and Hispanics have a higher percentage of incarcerations compared to their percentage of the total population because the American penal system is racist thus bias against non-whites. This is why gang statistics are important. For decades gangs have been home grown. It can be argued however that original emergence of black gangs was due to white racism.  The L.A. Crips, for example, came into being because black youth were isolated from white society and participation in the American Dream. Gangs gave black youths a sense of identity, dignity, and pride. The Bloods, however, formed to protect blacks from the Crips (Wikipedia, “Crips”). Then the two gangs declared war on one another. This was an important transition in the evolution of black culture, a self-inflicted tragedy—that of blacks turning on one another when they already had plenty of enemies. A corollary of gang life is that it became an accepted subculture in back society, which meant that internecine black contra black gang warfare would be unending.  Tragically, many young blacks today voluntarily choose the road to ruin, though it must be recognized that white society for the longest time prevented them from choosing otherwise. As a consequence, a fatalistic slave mentality was adopted by them that encouraged failure through resignation: “What the fuck! The system is against me.” 

From Freddy’s Freaky America Life by Frank Kyle 

“Blacks are more like prisoners of a war that took place a long time ago in Africa and were brought to America and put in prison camps called plantations. Knowing that they had no chance at winning since they were stuck in enemy territory, all they could do was pray to god hoping he’d take pity on them because god’s supposed to be all about love, but that didn’t happen. I mean now that I think about it, that’s a lot to expect from a guy who creates a lake of fire so he can torture millions of sinners who were probably mostly losers anyway. Besides, why would a white god care about a bunch of black people? If he was such a nice guy he’d of made them white in the first place so they wouldn’t of ended up slaves which he knew was going to happen because he’s supposed to know everything. So when black people finally figured out god wasn’t going to help them all they could do was wait and hope white people would one day suddenly be nice and let them out of the plantation prisons.

“As it turned out they kind of did and didn’t. You see, they let them out of the plantation prisons but then put them in ghetto prisons. By then black people pretty much decided that neither god or white people was going to help them out. So what did they do? They became cool, a style of life created by black people. After that they could still feel good about themselves even if white people weren’t going to let them out of their ghetto prisons. Then white people wanted to be cool but they never have been able to pull it off. Elvis Presley was one of the first to try to do it but just ended up looking ridiculous, and you know what he looked like when he got fat, like Moby-Dick with a guitar.”

Today, the gang plague has morphed into a nemesis far more complex and dangerous to American communities. The video below points out that as the white threat to black communities lessened, in part because blacks transformed their communities into killing grounds whites avoid, blacks turned on one another became both predator and prey. Then came the Hispanic invasion with gangs that are ethnic adversaries of blacks and engaged in the ethnic cleansing of black communities. By allowing and even encouraging the invasion of ethnic groups each represented by its own gangs the U.S. government once again betrayed black Americans. White Americans have been fleeing invaded cities for decades.

L.A.’s demographic evolution indicates that and reflects what is occurring in the country at large. Now there are Asian gangs, Middle-Eastern gangs, East African gangs (Sudanese gangs, Ethiopian gangs and Somali gangs), East Coast, Caribbean ethnic-based gangs include Dominican, Haitian, and Jamaican gangs. From Wikipedia : “Approximately 1.4 million people were part of gangs as of 2011, and more than 33,000 gangs were active in the United States” (“Gangs in the United States”). This from National Youth Gang Survey Analysis: Demographics: “The most recent figures provided by law enforcement are 46 percent Hispanic/Latino gang members, 35 percent African-American/black gang members, more than 11 percent white gang members, and 7 percent other race/ethnicity of gang members.” The U.S. had a gang problem, and what do politicians do about the problem? They make it worse.

And these gangs are more than just dangerous street gangs who effect is local, as seen in movies like The Warriors and The Wanderers. Gangs have become big business in the U.S. like the Italian and Russian mafias.  12 Biggest Organized Crime Groups in America provides a list: Artistas Asensios (Mexican), Norteño (Mexican), Crips and Bloods, Texas Syndicate (Mexican), MS-13 (Salvadoran), Latin Kings (Puerto Rican), Paisa (Colombian), Mexican Mafia, Tango Blast (Hispanic), Barrio Azteca (Mexican), and Sureños (Mexican) Do you see a pattern? Of course these are only big players. The list of gangs is almost endless. “Approximately 1.4 million people were part of gangs as of 2011, and more than 33,000 gangs were active in the United States” (“Gangs in the United States,” Wikipedia). And it’s unlikely that the situation has improved with open borders. Take as an example from Texas alone: Tango Blast gangs consist of “Incarcerated Hispanic men from major Texas cities (including Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin), [that] have banded together for protection from established security threat groups like Mexikanemi and the Texas Syndicate” and Barrio Azteca. (“Puro Tango Blast,” Wikipedia). If you don’t notice a positive feedback, you should. 

L.A. America’s Multicultural Future: “Los Angeles Gang Capital of the World”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMK0w3f-RIk

Take a knee for open borders. Three words that spell betrayal: Democrats, Biden, and Harris.

And white Supremacists are today’s big threat to America! Go figure. The New York Times writers have a passion for criticizing the threat of white supremacists. So what is the body count for white supremacists?  Newsweek, hardly a conservative magazine, says, that “In the U.S., 64 victims were killed in 34 terrorist attacks by white supremacists and white nationalists between 2015 and 2019, the report [Global Terrorism Database] showed” (“White Supremacists Killed More Americans than Muslim Extremists in Recent Years, Terrorism Report Shows” online article). A Newsweek word game because killings by Muslim extremists are used for a false comparison—overlooking the 9-11 attacks 2,996 killed and over 25,000 injured and the mass shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, 49 killed and 53 wounded. “According to the FBI, white supremacists were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement.” (Sound Vision “Facts and Statistics on White Supremacists in the United State,” online article). And “The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimated in 2016 that there were 3,000 active members.” But what about comparing the white supremacist nemesis to the body count and criminal activity of 33,000 gangs active in the United States, mostly imported? And as far as I know, white supremacists or skin heads or whatever are not involved in crimes such as making and selling illegal drugs, selling illegal weapons, thefts, muggings, drive-by shootings, burglary, robbery, gang rape, vehicle thefts, prostitution, human trafficking, and so on. There are more gangs than there are card-carrying white supremacists. The only way the left can get around that disparity is to claim that all white people are racist and wannabe card-carrying white supremacists. It’s a word game. 

Just More Bad News for Black Americans

It is important to note that of the 12 biggest organized crime groups in America, 10 are Hispanic. Thus, it’s not as if black Americans didn’t have enough problems originating with white Americans. Now they must defend themselves against endless vicious black-hating gangs from south of the border. Who gets the blame for that? Big greedy business and stupid, self-centered, fuck Main-Street-America politicians. Who were American blacks before the gangster mentality infiltrated their culture? There are some really cool books that answer that question: Black Cowboys of the Old West and African American Women of the Old West by Tricia Martineau Wagner, Black Cowboys of Texas by Sara R. Massey and Alwyn Barr, Black Pioneers: Images of Black Experience on the North American Frontier by John W. Ravage, and The black towns America's Black Towns and Settlements by Morris Turner. There are also books on black Indians and soldiers (Buffalo Soldiers).

What these books reveal is that all post-Civil War blacks sought to live ordinary lives, like those white folks lived. They just wanted to work, fall in love, have a family, and live in a community of good people. Referencing Clifford Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures, the cultural DNA of black Americans was the same as that of white Americans. White America, however, did everything possible to prevent black Americans from realizing the cultural DNA they inherited from whites. As a result, a huge amount of bad karma was created that has destroyed America today. That’s right—destroyed. Until about the 1950s there wasn't much difference between white and black Americans except skin color and whites not having lived as slaves. (In case you don’t want to read a former slave’s memoir such as Harriet Jacobs’ Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, you can watch Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave.)

By harassing black Americans and isolating them in black ghettos, white Americans cause black culture to mutate, creating a new cultural DNA that is revealed in the celebrated television series The Wire. How do non-blacks view black culture? By what is visible in the media: sports, yes, but also drugs, violence, imprisonment, welfare, single mothers & absent dads, gangs, drive-by shootings, and failure in school? Their communities are the most dangerous and degraded in the U.S. A culture in which 72% of black kids are raised by single parent because dad is either gone, dead, gangbanging, or in prison. A culture in which 90% of blacks who are murdered are murdered by other blacks, though white racists continue to be considered primary threat to black people. This new cultural DNA is a youth culture that has split off from the mainstream culture of adults who value most work, family, children, community, and most likely religion. The youth culture celebrates sports, sex, bling, drugs, gangbanging, murder, and general mayhem that competes with the old American cultural DNA of working, falling in love, getting married, having a family, and living in a community of good people?  The new cultural DNA remains a minority in terms of number but dominant in terms of influence and daily life.

In the video a cop says that the gangbangers probably represent 1% of the population of the neighborhood. That should be a wake-up call, though too late, for America as a whole. Just a small percentage of the population can transform a civilized nation into an uncivilized nation, like the one just south of the border—excuse me, there is no border. Mexico ranks 24 from the top among the Most Dangerous Countries in the World out of the world’s 161 nations, sandwiched between India and Iran. So, the immigrants are bringing their dangerous waysto America, all expenses paid by American taxpayers. Wow, think about it— subsidizing our destruction. 

The Morality of Gangbanging and Gangsterism

Rational conservatism does not believe in moral absolutes; thus it cannot declare gangbanging and gangsterism to be immoral or evil in an absolute sense. That does not mean rational conservatives believe such behavior is good, only that it is considered such by gangbangers and gangsters. Rational conservatives condemn such behavior as immoral or evil in a relative sense. It is such to them if not to the individuals who participate in the lifestyle, which is all it is, a way of living that is a matter of choice. There are no objective, absolute, transcendent criteria for the moral judgment of actions. Such judgments are not like logical or empirical claims, which can be objectively verified. The claim the Sun revolves around the Earth is false and can be objectively proven to be false using observation. The claim 2 + 2 = 5 is logically false and can be objectively proven to be false. Empirical and logical claims are verifiable, but moral claims are not; thus gangbanging and gangsterism cannot be proven to be an evil way to live in the same way that the two other statements can be proven to be false.

To gangbangers and gangsters living a life that causes harm is not immoral or evil but good. That does not mean such a way of life is good in an absolute or objective sense in the way 2 + 2 = 4 is true in an absolute, objective sense. To other people, living as a gangbanger and gangster is immoral, even evil, because it’s behavior contrary to their values. Religious and Republican conservatives reject moral relativism. The first claims God sets the standards for moral and immoral behavior. That’s not true. If God exists, his standards can be judged by human. Just because God claims action X is right or wrong doesn’t make it right or wrong. Such a view believes that the basis for moral judgments is arbitrary—a matter of will rather than reason. Religious believers have claimed that if God said 2 + 2 = 5 then 2 + 2 = 5 is true, and is true because God is the final arbiter of all claims. That is how the belief in God thwarts both reason and morality. For example, endless believers accept the view that if God says pagans, infidels, gays, atheists, etc., ought to be killed, then they ought to be killed and killing them isn’t wrong because it is doing what God wants done. The 9-11 terrorists believed they were doing Allah's will. Bush said God told him to go to war against Iraq. This is how religion leads to nihilism.

Secondly, the God of the Abrahamic religions is a moral monster—he drowns the world, innocent and guilty alike; he murders the Egyptians’ first born, humans and animals alike; he orders the slaughter of pagans and even joins in the slaughter; and he creates a lake of fire in which to torture atheists and members of other religions. These behaviors contradict his being qualified to be an arbiter of moral norms.

Third, the problem of evil. For example, the Black Death was a bubonic plague pandemic that occurred 1346 to 1353, the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, killing 75–200 million individuals. Being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, God should have acted to prevent so much unnecessary suffering and death. But he didn’t. The Good Samaritan is morally superior to God—many good humans are. We call them heroes. And that’s the other thing, saving humans by destroying or preventing evil requires no sacrifice on God's part. We expect people to aid others if doing so is without risks. Human heroes even some animals risk their lives to aid people in danger. One would expect as much from God. Tolerating so much evil that he could have prevented, disqualifies him as an arbiter of what is good and evil.

Finally, if there is no convincing evidence that God exists, basing moral judgments on a hypothetical is irrational. 

The Ideal Moral Principle: Jesus versus Immanuel Kant

With the evil, unknowable, or non-existent God out of picture, we can now turn to the only legitimate arbiters of morality—human beings. Generally and historically they have been as bad as God when it comes to determining and living the moral life. Let’s face it. They invented God so it’s not surprising that he thinks and acts as they do. When it comes to morality, wise men have been far and few between. Two are Jesus and Kant. However, our knowledge of Jesus has been severely corrupted by Apostle Paul and his followers the other writers of the New Testament. The concern here is finding a moral cardinal principle upon which a civilized, humane system of morality can be based. So one cardinal moral principle that will serve as a guide endless moral corollaries.

Buddhsim

Before beginning, a word about Buddha’s worldview is necessary. For a number of reasons he does not rank with Jesus and Kant. His greatest virtue is his concern for suffering of all creatures. Wanting to keep suffering to a minimum is a great virtue. The biggest problem with Buddha’s moral philosophy is that it refuses to cause suffering to prevent it. H.W. Schumann says in his The Historical Buddha that “When the native Indian religions were being persecuted by Islam in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, several thousands of bhikkhus [Buddhist monks] allowed themselves to be murdered without resistance” (202). Schumann describes their behavior as illustrating “heroic self-discipline.” Allowing one to be passively sliced and diced is not heroic. The principle was not to cause suffering to the subhuman monsters attacking them. (In each case is seen how ideologies corrupt people’s thinking and behavior.) It can be correctly said that they had a right to passively die. But that is not the whole story, of course. What is left unsaid is the killing, destroying, raping, torturing that others suffered because the Buddhist pacifists would not defend the innocent men, women, and children of their homeland against the most heinous evil. They would allow their parents and siblings to be butchered rather than harm the butcher.

And the motivation was selfish. Only by not causing suffering could the bhikkhus end the cycle of death and rebirth. Not defending one family, friends, and members of one community is not moral (and likely to be immoral) and is inconsistent with one of humanity’s noblest virtues: defending loved ones. It’s behavior that is contrary to the dominant principle of life found even in animals—to defend life from harm. Other morally questionable behaviors of Buddhist monks reveal by Schumann is the abandonment of family (which Buddha/ Siddhattha Gotama did) and begging rather than working thus living off of people who do work. When not begging they are meditating. Such a life is selfish, leaching, and nonproductive thus hardly morally praiseworthy. However, to keep causing suffering to a minimum is a humane principle. To make the principle reasonable a qualification is needed: causing suffering to prevent suffering is justified. So much for Buddhism.

Jesus

Generally, JudeoChristianity is morally inferior to Buddhism, which might come as a surprise after what was just said about Buddhism. First, its afterlife metaphysics is far crueler than that found in Buddhism, in which there is no lake of fire (a notion most likely originating with an apostle of hate either Paul (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8) or Matthew (13:42) though the words are attributed to Jesus. If true, then Jesus must be rejected on moral grounds. Such punishment is hardly consistent with turning the other cheek. Ironically, in Buddhism life is hell, a notion also common to JudeoChristianity. Buddhism is not a hateful, us-versus-them religion as are Judaism, JudeoChristianity, and JudeoIslam. It doesn’t preach hate toward non-believers and it is less oppressive of women—who were allowed by Buddha to become monks—though it encouraged men to abandon wives and their children leaving them vulnerable to aggressors: “Households with many women and few men fall an easy prey to robbers and thieves of the household treasures” (Schumann 117). In addition, Jesus preaches loving one’s enemies, going beyond Buddhism, which I believe doesn’t require loving the people who will kill you, your family, friends, and members of your community: “When someone strikes your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well” and “I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:39 and 5:44). So not much progress there.

Besides, Old Testament Christianity ignored Jesus’ preaching loving rather than hating one’s neighbors. Love expressed by the Abrahamic religions is limited to the members of the faith, and not always to them if they are backsliders or homosexual. Certainly, American slaveowners were not Jesus-Christians but Old Testament Christians or perhaps worse just plain evil. And the history of Judaism, JudeoChristianity, and JudeoIslam has been a history of hatred, of others and of one another, that has continued into the 21^st century. Unlike Buddhism, the Abrahamic religions created enemies where there were none before. In that way, Jesus was an exception, a rebel who rejected hatred of others, those that was not true for Paul and the other writers of the New Testament. Jesus must be judge by his actions, the existential Jesus, and what he says that is consistent with those actions: his cardinal parable being the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The Golden Rule

“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12). This Golden Rule is well intended but quite flawed. Jesus lacked a modern, let’s say Freudian/Darwinian, understanding of human nature. He says, for example, “everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). The one to blame is his divine father who programmed men to be Horny 24/7 so they would “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” to overcrowding, I might add. Humans are not like nature’s wonders—plants, animals, mountains, buttes, canyons, deserts, rivers, valleys, lakes, oceans, clouds, snow, and so on that make living on planet Earth a glorious experience. More the merrier doesn’t apply to hordes of humans who plunge cities and nations into chaos and diminish the earth’s ability to sustain life. Occasionally, humans do enhance the world—ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome for example—but mostly they are nature’s and their own greatest source of misery. Look at the world today.

Wouldn’t life be better for everyone and everything if the human global population growth had plateaued at about 4 billion in the 1970s? Is the U.S. quality of life really better with its present population of 331,449,281. Will it be even better in 2050 when the population will according to PEW Research Center reach 438 million? No. Mega cities will become larger as will their crime and poverty rate. There is a reason RVers warn not to camp near big cities. Big cities are petri dishes for crime, poverty, disease, and desperation. And why didn’t God see all this and design men to be in heat only a month or so during the year? Sorry for the digression. Comes with being a pessimist. Really, is there today any reason for optimism?

Democrats and Republicans

The moral authority of both parties is corrupted. The morality of the Democrats is essentially negative and nihilistic. They are Marxist nihilists who want America destroyed and the wealth of Americans to be appropriated—through taxation or looting—and given away to their anti-America supporters. It is the morality of the Old Testament Jews who hated pagans and sought their destruction and the confiscation of their land and wealth, or the morality of Old Testament JudeoChristians who hated the Native American pagans and sought their destruction and the confiscation of their homelands in addition to the their hatred of blacks whom they made slaves even if they were JudeoChristians, or the morality of Marxists who hate the bourgeoisie and want them and their society destroyed. The morality of the Democrats is an us-versus-them moral system. So the other—specifically white Americans—are the enemy. That principle co-opts other moral principles such as the principle of autonomy and the Good Samaritan principle.  Why is that? It’s because an absolute, categorical enemy has no moral rights just because of who they are, not because of what they’ve done: pagans had no moral rights to the ancient Jews even when they did not aggress the Jews, non-believers (such as Native Americans) had no moral rights to JudeoChristians (ditto that for black slaves) even if they were peaceful, infidels have no moral rights to Muslims just because they are nonMuslims, and the bourgeoisie have no rights to Marxists just because they belong to the Bourgeois class. This is how us-versus-them ideologies lead to moral nihilism.

Republicans should not be judges of morality because their judgments are usually biased by religious ideology (e.g., their condemnation and hatred of gays), political ideology (neoconservatism), by personal political ambitions (ditto that for Democratic politicians), by greed, by loyalty to specific interest groups (the military industrial complex (greed), big corporations, and big money financial institutions). Of course, none of these institutions consider their views as being immoral. The ancient Jews considered their conquest of Canaan to be moral, JudeoChristians believed their conquests of homelands and peoples throughout the world to be morally justified, ditto that for the Muslim conquests, for the Marxists’ conquest of Russia and China that that killed millions of people, for Hitler’s war and the Holocaust, for the Islamic States’ bloody rampage, and so on.

Many people would consider such moralities as evil. The important conclusion here is that one’s person’s morality is considered evil to another person. That moral ideologies can be manipulated is one of the general weaknesses of morality. Moral ideologies are often used to justified heinous crimes against individuals and populations. That is one reason why our understanding of ethics has progressed greatly but that progress has not eliminated men’s propensity to cause harm. Gangbangers and criminals reject moral principles that are the basis of a humane, civil society. That is a conundrum for humanity. And all that can be done is for good men and women stand up against those who would harm their families, friends, communities, and nation. And the fundamental goal is to protect one’s own and one’s allies. This does not and should not mean sacrificing the blood and treasure of one’s own people to save other nations that have brought failure upon themselves. What about being a Good Samaritan? Putting in harm’s way others in order to play the role of Good Samaritan is immoral. A cardinal principle in this regard is to protect one’s own people. Not to do so is a betrayal of one’s own people. The Vietnam War was such a betrayal as was the Iraq War. And in those wars American, Vietnamese, and Iraqis were betrayed by American politicians. Was America’s involvement in World War I and World War II morally justified? Defending friends and allies is a moral and practical good. 

Is Open-Borders a Moral Imperative?

The answer is no. First of all, what was the Good Samaritan’s motive? It can be one of two. The first could be emotional. Most people have helped out people in need because (1) doing so made them feel good or they felt pity or (2) sympathy or love for the needy person. The second motivation could be a sense of duty. That seems to be Jesus’ motivation to help others. The philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that moral acts should be motivated by a sense of duty, meaning that the motivation is the action itself, not how it makes one feel. Both are good reasons for helping others. Good Samaritan ethics fall into the category of positive ethics—doing good when doing good is not a moral obligation.

It may come as a surprise that ethics does not demand behaving as a Good Samaritan. A person is not morally required to give money to a beggar. However, the situation does matter. In some cases not helping would be immoral. Not to save a drowning child when the only risk of doing so is getting wet would be morally wrong. However, generally helping others is not a moral obligation or imperative; otherwise, doing so would not be praiseworthy. Negative ethics are obligatory. Not to harm a beggar or a child is demanded by negative ethics. We do not praise men for not raping women or not looting stores and burning buildings not engaging in pedophilia. It is expected that such behavior is avoided. A person is not required to love or help his neighbor but is required not to harm him or her. Now all this assumes that a person cares about being moral—helping, not hurting—but there are a lot people who don’t give a damn and even enjoy harming others. If that were not the case, there would be no reason for morality in the first place.

Certainly, however, being a Good Samaritan is immoral if the Good Samaritan action harms others. For example, stealing money from a passerby in order to give it to the beggar would be immoral because negative morality based on the principle of autonomy supersedes positive Good Samaritan morality. 

Open-Borders Is not Moral

How can open-borders qualify as a moral rather than an immoral Good-Samaritan program? It must be kept in mind that Good-Samaritanism is not a moral obligation nor unconditionally good. It cannot morally condone robbing (harming) Peter to pay (being a Good Samaritan to) Paul. For one thing, robbing Peter violates an unconditional rule of negative morality: Robbing Peter would violate his autonomy thus would be immoral. To repeat, positive morality cannot justify violating negative morality principles.

The Majority must Approve Open Borders

The majority of a nation’s population must approve opening the nation’s border to immigrants. In the U.S. a Marxist, anti-America oligarchy has opened the nation’s borders without the approval of a majority of Americans. Doing so violated their autonomy as members of a democratic nation. The decision certainly benefits immigrants, but the benefit to non-Americans cannot morally justify the program without majority approval. The only duty of politicians is to serve the people they represent, not others, not themselves and certainly not a personal political agenda. Thus the Marxist Biden-Harris oligarchy acted authoritarianly rather than democratically. In some cases, even representatives can violate the authority of the electorate. The majority of the members of the Congress and Senate approved both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. The lessons here are (1) politicians cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the people they represent and (2) they definitely are not more intelligent than the average American, too often less so.

No Harm to the Invaded Population

This means that if open borders harm a minority of the invaded population, even if a majority of the population agreed to an open borders policy, the policy is immoral. To put a minority population at risk violates the autonomy of the minority population. The video “Los Angeles Gang Capital of the World” is an illustration of a minority suffering from open borders (and even restricted) immigration. A fundamental purpose of the nation state and its borders is to protect its people. It is the same principle that is applied to the sanctity of the home. The home is an inviolable space, a sanctuary, where home owners/renters can feel safe. Entering a home without permission is considered criminal and immoral. What is true for the home is true for the homeland. In the video the intrusion of Hispanics into black neighborhoods results in blacks not being safe in their homes or on their streets. Allowing this to occur U.S. politicians (they can hardly be call American politicians) betrayed black Americans—again.

The Open-Borders Sham

The Good Samaritan justification of the open-borders policy is a sham. The motivation of the policy is not to benefit the immigrants flooding over the southern border—though it has that effect—but to destroy America by making it disappear in a multi-cultural (euphemistically call diversification) morass. The motivation of the destruction is two-fold. Anti-American whites hate the country and want it destroyed. The white rulers of the Democratic Party are the most powerful group of American haters. Non-whites haters of America want America destroyed to benefit their own people. They serve their own ethnic group first and foremost. They are praised for doing so while white Americans are condemned for doing. The sham is that destroying America can hardly benefit the nation and its people. Vice President Kamala Harris claimed to be the first African American. She’s not simply because her ancestors were not American slaves. She’s a Jamaican-Indian U.S. citizen, thus it’s not surprising that her commitment would be to non-white immigrants.

However, her support for the rioters burning cities and looting stores reveals her hateful agenda to see America disappear:

“This is a movement, I’m telling you,” Harris said in the interview. “They’re not going to stop. And everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be — everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.” This view can be summed up with Antifa motto: No borders/No walls/No USA at all. Will genuine black Americans benefit from the destroy-American movement? The YouTube video suggests that will not be the case. In 1790 blacks were 19.3% of the U.S. population. 10% in 1910. Today, 13.4%, some increase, yet Hispanics represent 18.5%. Worse for blacks is the projection that by 2050 their percentage of the population will increase by only .6% to 14% while Hispanics will increase to 29% from 3.5% in 1960. And how many of those future blacks will be genuine black Americans with slave ancestors?

Consequential Ethics and Open Borders

As the name suggests consequential ethics evaluates an action according to the consequences of the action. The evaluation, however, can be based on any number of desirable criteria. The consequences of action X may be considered good to person A yet bad to person B. Thus, person A would judge action X as morally good whereas person B would judge it as morally bad. Consequentialism appears to be relativistic ethics, which it is because the moral value of action X varies with the beliefs, feelings, views, and attitudes of the people who judge the action. Most people believe in transcendent moral truths. Yet, what would be the absolute criterion for deciding the morality of action X? Essentially another person. It has been argued that God and God alone is the one and only source of absolute, unchanging, universal moral truths. Yet, it is always other persons who tell us what God’s views on morality are, or scripture, written by other persons. They may claim to know God’s views on morality, but what they claim comes down to being their opinions.

However, unlike what people who deny moral relativism believe, it’s really no less effective than absolute moral claims based on religion or whatever. When the Catholic Church ruled Europe with an iron fist based on God's law, there was just as much misbehavior, including that of the Catholic Church. Islamic societies are ruled according to God’s/Allah’s law, yet Islamic states are cruelly oppressive as were the society of the ancient Jews ruled by totalitarian priests and European society during the Dark Ages under the heel of the Catholic Church. The totalitarian character of these societies disqualifies their God-based morality. Morality really comes down to whether people want to live in a society rife with crime, corruption, brutality, oppression, chronic fear or one that is civilized—one in which those evils don’t exist or are kept to a minimum and Kant’s principle of autonomy determines people’s behavior. It is not a matter of absolute ethics versus relative ethics but a matter of choice.

Getting back to a consequentialist evaluation the open-borders policy adopted arbitrarily by the Biden-Harris-Democrat Oligarchy. From the point of view of the Oligarchy, their open-borders policy--to create a demographic shift benefiting the Democrat Party--will be a success if it throws America into a state of chaos and reduces white Americans to just another minority among endless others. We saw how they celebrated the looting, rioting, and arson. (And they won the election anyway using what became their greatest political WMD Donald Trump, given to them by the Republican Party. How ironic is that!) And if the nation becomes a formless monster of chaos consisting of spasmodic violent impulses and emotions rooted in ethnic tribalism, a nation in which drive-by shootings and looting and setting fires become a form of play, the Oligarchy will still claim open borders a success, a moral good, because the country has become multicultural, the highest good. The fact is open-borders was never motivated by humanitarianism but initially by economics and today by revolutionary politics. But Main Street America will consider the policy immoral if it returns America to a primeval tribalism in which the quality of life becomes “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” A viable society requires order. What the Oligarchy values and wants most for America is disorder, which negates a social morality based on the principle of autonomy and Good Samaritanism.

In The Non-Suicidal Society Andrew Oldenquist describes such a society as one in which a person is unable to predict the behavior of others. In a society based on an ethics of consideration for others (like the Golden Rule), a person knows that most likely he or she will be treated with respect. If the ethics of a society are in a state of disarray, predicting others’ behavior becomes uncertain. In a society of violent tribalism, a person can expect to be safe only within the confines of his or her tribe (though less certain for females*). In such a society power rather than morality rules, the power of law (if it hasn’t been disbanded) and the power possessed by tribes be they ethnic, political, or financial. It is a society where women carry a gun or mace in their purse to protect themselves. It is a return to the chaotic core of masculine primitivism.

*”In another study, African American adolescents reported the highest proportion of forced sexual intercourse, which is consistent with results from the National Violence Against Women Survey showing that black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native women are at greater risk for rape victimization than white women” (“Race, Ethnicity, Substance Use, and Unwanted Sexual Intercourse among Adolescent Females in the United States,” WestJEM: Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, online article). 

Now It’s Too Late To Save the Nation

It would have been so simple (1) to allow blacks, mostly ex-slaves after the Civil War, to participate in the American Dream and (2) to prevent Main Street America from being invaded by cultures that would inundate American society with gangs and organized crime. Now it’s too late to save America from being swallowed by societal chaos. A new cultural DNA also emerged in white culture. It rebelled against what it considered the sterility of the conventional culture of the adults. However, initially the rebellion was edgy but joyful. That can be found in the music of the 1950s, but the negativity of the rebellion intensified with the Vietnam War, and would continue to intensify in response to the toxic behavior of big business and the government. That too can be found in the hauntingly beautiful music inspired by the war.

Beginning with the Vietnam War young Americans’ disenchantment with government and big business became increasingly infused with hatred. This is true for young people on the right and left. They may side with the Republicans but they hate Republican politicians. They may side with the Democrats but they hate Democratic politicians. And they hate America's commercial juggernauts that are transforming America into a giant, boring, oppressive, decadent franchised shopping arcade. They may buy from Amazon.com but hate Jeff Bezos. They visit Starbuck’s now and then for a latte but hate the company’s coffee tsars. They probably never enter a Walmart because they hate the store and the Waltons. They hate them for destroying America’s small towns and neighborhood stores.

They may use Facebook but hate Mark Zuckerberg. They certainly use Microsoft products but hate plutocrat Bill Gates. They hate megacorporations that crush or buy out competitors. They most likely use Apple made-in-China products but hate Apple for either being a slave state supporter or for collaborating with the enemy. They use YouTube but hate its censoring controllers. Most likely they use Google but hate the Google’s autarchs. They hate them all for transforming America into a plutocracy of consumer junkies. Without question they hate Monsanto, oil companies, credit card companies, big banks and investment firms just because they believe they are evil. In other words, right or left, young Americans hate the corporate and political wheeler-dealers of modern America. And now they hate one another. Hate rules America. What has been lost is good will, trust, and the friendliness America was once known for across the globe.

That, of course, is exactly the America the Marxist Democratic left wanted, and they got what they worked so hard to get—a nation ruled by hatred and existing in a state of self-destructive chaos. They are not solely responsible for this state of affairs. The seeds of America’s decline were planted early in the nation’s history. But the Marxist Democrats were the first political party to want America destroyed. So rather than attempting to prevent the nation’s destruction they accelerated the process. The destruction desired wasn’t just about pulling down statues and setting fire to buildings. What was desired was the destruction of the society, a way of life, a culture to be replaced not with a Marxist utopia (which always turn out to be dystopias), but an anti-society society if society means order, cultural integrity, moral behavior, that is, to be civilized.

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.  Sometime, 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 you 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 were 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.

The Biden-Harris Administration of Hate

Hatred is what drives today’s Democratic Party and the Biden-Harris administration is at the wheel of government. Their multicultural Marxism is a facade for what is essentially a nihilistic agenda. Like the master nihilist George Soros they characterize their open-borders program as being a humanitarian effort to save all of the have-nots of the world by allowing them to flood into America to be cared for. But the real motive is the destruction of America. Unlike traditional Marxist they have no plan for their new utopia. The program is in reality a great giveaway—the giving away of everything that belong to Americans, including their homeland, to the immigrants who are able to escape their failed states and make their way to America and transform it into a failed state. The goal, of course, is not to save them but the destruction of America and the American people. In his book Nihilism Helmut Thielicke, a Christian, says, “The viciousness of this nihilistic inversion consists in the fact that it takes place behind an unchanging facade, and that so ‘Satan disguises himself as an angel of light’ and appears, not in attack upon the house of God, but within the house of God. Here again we are dealing with camouflaged nihilism...” (36).

The facade of the Democratic Party and the Biden-Harris administration is a Marxist utopia. That is not their purpose. Marxism is their weapon, not their goal. Destruction of America is their purpose and goal. What is their motivation? It’s similar to the motivation that inspired the ancient Jews’ hatred of pagans: resentment. Both Biden and Harris are narcissists afflicted with a debilitating inferiority complex. Biden thinks of himself as a great man. He’s not. He never accomplished anything of note. Even the flimflam narcissist Trump has attracted more attention and applause (both undeserved). The same is true for Harris. She has aspired to be a great American black woman, but is an ordinary black woman who isn’t even a true black American. Her roots are alien, i.e., having no historical roots that reach back to slavery, the only criterion for being a black American. Both are second-raters who believe they are the greatest, but have never proven themselves as such. So now they are angry with America for not recognizing their non-existing greatness. And they have acquired an army of followers just like them, angry, American-hating ne'er-do-wells (contraction of phrase never do well) filled with resentment who have taken up the banner of Marxism to disguise and ennoble their nihilistic hatred of America.

Biden Dies with a Smile

Biden’s goal has always been to kill America. Like the Las Vegas shooter he is filled with hatred. But unlike Stephen Paddock he acquired the power to kill a nation. The motivation is the same. Americans consider Biden’s death-wish for America a deep betrayal, Judas like, because he once was an American just as Judas was a follower of Jesus before he betrayed him. His partner in crime shares Biden’s motivation, hatred, but her action is not betrayal because she was never an American except on paper. She is guilty of obscene ingratitude. She hates the country that enabled her to achieve the second highest office in the land. She returns the favor with a knife in the back smiling at the sight of her victim's blood. When Biden is on his deathbed a few of his closest America hating conspirators will gather around him, Nancy Pelosi, Charles E. Schumer, Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, members of the Squad, and others. All wearing Halloween grins. Though death is near, he too smiles. Wiping away bit of drool from his chin, Harris says, “You did good, Mr. President. You killed America, with our help, of course. And President Trump's. He should be here. We couldn’t have done it without him. Rest in peace, Mr. President.”

The Wisdom of Luther Standing Bear

Luther Standing Bear said the white man attempted the transformation of the Indian and what resulted was chaos (248). “Tyranny, stupidity, and lack of vision” brought about the problem. That exactly describes Democrats’ attempt to transform America. Such an attempt upon Native Americans was made in government Indian schools, and the attempt to de-Americanize Americans is occurring today in public schools. What is the Marxist democrats’ vision for America? A laissez-faire society where everything goes, a Mardi Gras funded by American taxpayers. Laws will not be enforced, anyone who desires will be on the dole. Cities will be filled with criminals, homeless people, drug addicts, the mentally insane, and anarchists. Cities will become Babylons. The model for America’s future is seen in cities such as L.A., New York City, Albuquerque, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, and others that have become urban islands ruled by the Democratic lords of flies.

Luther Standing Bear says that the Indian can save America. Once but no longer. That time has passed. Numbers matter. For the Indians there was a numerical a tipping point beyond which their nations could not be saved from the invaders. This is also true for America. The tipping point has passed. Now nothing can save America.