Tuesday, August 12, 2014

We want to note how sad we are at the recent passing of two beloved Hollywood stars.
ROBIN WILLIAMS, who died by is own hand at age 63,  and LAUREN BACALL, who lived a rich, full life and departed at age 89.
I hope both will rest in peace, 
despite their virulent liberalism.
I'm, personally, sure God must have special rules that apply to true artists. They give so much more than others could possibly suspect, and always at great cost to themselves. 
As Thornton Wilder said in Our Town: 
Only the Saints and Poets even begin to understand what life is all about. 
I would add performing artists as well.


INTRODUCTORY NOTE

I am not advocating the point of view explicated in the following essay, but I think it raises and gives a plausible, highly reasonable explanation –– through Niezsche's eyes –– of why the Jews attract suspicion and resentment and why twentieth century saw the rise of a serious attempt to annihilate them. 

Nietzsche's contention that CHRISTIANITY is in effect The Ultimate Weapon devised by Jews to conquer and destroy what Nietzsche regarded as Nature and Nobility may seem absurd, but it's a point of view I'd never heard articulated before, and I can understand why he saw logic in it. Nietzsche was after all an atheist, so naturally his worldview would be refracted through that prism. Do read it very carefully please, and take your time before responding. I think it may be "seminal," and would value your well-considered opinion. 

FreeThinke

Friedrich Nietzsche by Edvard Munch



Nietzsche on the Jews
Thomas Dalton (emphasis added by FT)
The Occidental Observer

September 28, 2009

Philosophers, as a rule, are a rather low-key bunch.  They generally discuss mundane, technical, or utterly abstract topics that cause little concern among society at large.  Of course there were exceptions, primarily during the Renaissance when the early humanists incurred the wrath of the Church (think of Bruno or Spinoza); this required some to publish their works either pseudonymously or posthumously.  And Marx and Engels have certainly garnered their fair share of enmity.  But by and large philosophers throughout the ages have raised few serious hackles.

A major exception is the case of Friedrich Nietzsche, certainly one of the most controversial philosophers in history.  The epitome of non-political-correctness, Nietzsche clearly did not give a damn about whom he might offend.  He was on a mission to uncover the fundamental flaws in Western society, to expose hypocrisy and moral corruption, and to undermine every aspect of degenerate modern society.  Only by getting to the root of the problem, he thought, could we find our way forward—a path to the greatness that is human destiny.


The sad state of modern life, he said, is a consequence of the overturning of classical values that occurred in the early post-Christian world.  These classic values—originating in ancient Greece and embraced by the Romans—emphasized strength, robustness, nobility, self-determination, and personal excellence.  These life-affirming values, the ‘master’ or ‘aristocratic’ values, were the foundation upon which the great civilizations of Athens and Rome were built. 

One consequence of this development was the powerful and expansive Roman Empire.  It reached Palestine by the year 60 b.c., and held that territory for over five hundred years, until the fall of the Western Empire in 476 (though the Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire continued on much longer).  During this time, Nietzsche claimed, the oppression felt by the Jews and early Christians grew to the point at which a new value system—the Judeo-Christian value system—came into being, as a kind of religious and ethical response to Roman domination.  Though a single unified system, it carried different emphases for the two groups.  For Jews the focus was on self-pity, ethnic cohesion, a thirst for revenge, an obsession with freedom, a hatred of the strong and powerful, and a desire to recover lost wealth.  The Christians—through the figure of Jesus—preferred to emphasize the value of the down-trodden (“blessed are the meek”), faith in God to bring justice (“the meek shall inherit the earth”), salvation in the afterlife, and a fixation on love as a means for ameliorating suffering.  Arising as it did out of the quasi-slavery imposed by the Romans, Nietzsche deemed this collective Judeo-Christian response a ‘slave’ or ‘priestly’ morality. 

When the Western Empire, based in Rome, collapsed in the 5th century a.d., the master morality collapsed with it.  As the only real competitor, slave morality rose to take its place as the dominant ethical system of the West.  And there it has remained for nearly two thousand years.  In this sense, Nietzsche says, the slave has defeated the master, and become the new master.

But the actual outcome [in Nietzsche's view] has been far from positive.  Quite the contrary: it has been an absolute disaster for humanity.  When combined with booming populations and advancing technology, there now exists a distinctly modern form of the priestly mindset, one based on subservience, conformity, equality, pity, guilt, suffering, revenge, and self-hatred:  the herd morality.  One could scarcely devise a lower conception of man.

Which brings us to the question of the Jews.  Nietzsche’s position on the Jews is complex and decidedly mixed.  On the one hand, they are the embodiment and product of the despised slave morality.  Jews owe their very success to the promotion and exploitation of this way of thinking.  On the other hand, they did succeed:  they ‘defeated’ (or rather, outlived) Rome, and thus were able to successfully pull off that inversion of values in which the slave eclipsed the master.  Partly for this very reason they have been able to sustain themselves as a distinct ethnicity through the millennia.  They are hardened survivors; they are (relatively) pure; they know how to succeed. 

We see this ambivalent attitude in an early work, Human, All Too Human (1878).  In a brief discussion of “the problem of the Jews,” Nietzsche shows evident sympathy with their suffering:  “I would like to know how much one must excuse in the overall accounting of a people which, not without guilt on all our parts, has had the most sorrowful history of all peoples” (sec. 475).  In a brief moment of praise—and in noted contrast to later writings—he hails the contributions of the Jews; they are the ones “to whom we owe the noblest human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world.”  This would be virtually his last unconditional praise for Jesus and the Bible.

The same passage, however, includes this observation:  “Every nation, every man has disagreeable, even dangerous characteristics; it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an exception.”  And there is no doubt that he is disagreeable:  “the youthful Jew of the stock exchange is the most repugnant invention of the whole human race.”  [Given our recent financial meltdown, bank bailouts, and the Madoff scandal, I think many would concur today.]

Nietzsche’s next book, Daybreak (1881), offers conditional praise for the Jews based on their long history of exclusion, isolation, and persecution.  “As a consequence of this [history], the psychological and spiritual resources of the Jews today are extraordinary” (sec. 205).  They are capable of the “coldest self-possession, … the subtlest outwitting and exploitation of chance and misfortune.”  Thus, mental acuity is of prime importance:  “They are so sure in their intellectual suppleness and shrewdness that they never, even in the worst straits, need to earn their bread by physical labor.”  Still, “their souls have never known chivalrous noble sentiments.” 

But they do have a plan for Europe:

[S]ince they are unavoidably going to ally themselves with the best aristocracy of Europe more and more with every year that passes, they will soon have created for themselves a goodly inheritance of spiritual and bodily demeanor: so that a century hence they will appear sufficiently noble not to make those they dominate ashamed to have them as masters And that is what matters! … Europe may fall into their hands like a ripe fruit, if they would only just extend them.

[In fact, as we know, it turned out to be America that fell into their hands, “like a ripe fruit.”]

The one other relevant passage in Daybreak, from section 377, introduces the important concept of Jewish hatred:  “It is where our deficiencies lie that we indulge in our enthusiasms.  The command ‘love your enemies!’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters there have ever been…”  The (Judeo-) Christian commandment of love, Nietzsche thought, grew directly from the hatred of the enslaved Jews, as a kind of mask or cover.  Perhaps even more than this—as a kind of deliberate deception.  A ‘bad hater’ wears his anger on his sleeve, for all to see.  A ‘good hater’ hides it inside.  But the ‘best’ plots revenge using the very opposite—an image of divine love—as cover.  “Even if you think of us as enemies,” the Jews might say, “love us anyway.  This is God’s command.”  This whole idea, only hinted at here, would lie dormant for some six years; it reemerges strongly in his 1887 masterpiece On the Genealogy of Morals.

After Daybreak there was a long five year stretch in which Nietzsche did not address the Jewish problem in any substantial way.  The Gay Science (parts 1–4) focused instead on the nature of science, on power, and on the ‘death of God.’  His other book of this period, the famous piece Thus Spoke Zarathustra, contained no reference to it. 

But by 1886, with the release of Beyond Good and Evil, he had returned to the topic.  Again his language is mixed.  He praises the Old Testament:  “In the Jewish ‘Old Testament,’ the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it” (sec. 52).  (In fact it was precisely this style that he duplicated so effectively in his Zarathustra.)  Europeans are furthermore indebted to the Jews for their high conception of ethics:  “What Europe owes to the Jews?  Many things, good and bad, and above all one thing that is of the best and of the worst:  the grand style in morality, the terribleness and majesty of infinite demands, infinite meanings” (sec. 250).

In part from this debt, and in part from their example as a tough, coherent, enduring race, the Jews should be allowed a role in Europe, Nietzsche thought.  In section 251 he decries the “anti-Jewish [stupidity]” of the times.  “I have not met a German yet who was well disposed toward the Jews.”  The common feeling — “that Germany has amply enough Jews” — was clearly holding sway.  But the Jews need to be given due consideration, for their influence is not insignificant:

A thinker who has the development of Europe on his conscience will…take into account the Jews as well as the Russians as the provisionally surest and most probable factors in the great play and fight of forces. …  That the Jews, if they wanted it…could even now have preponderance, indeed quite literally  mastery over Europe, that is certain; that they are not working and planning for that is equally certain.

I would remind the reader at this point of the considerable influence that Jews in fact had in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Their population hovered around one percent of the total during this time, but they were significantly overrepresented in a number of important fields.  Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans, and the Jewish Question; 1984) provides some relevant statistics. 

They were overrepresented in business, commerce, and public and private service…  These characteristics were already evident in the Middle Ages and appeared in the census data as early as 1843. … Jews were also influential in joint-stock corporations, the stock market, the insurance industry, and legal and economic consulting firms.  Before the First World War, for example, Jews occupied 13 percent of the directorships of joint-stock corporations and 24 percent of the supervisory positions within these corporations. … [D]uring 1904 they comprised 27 percent of all lawyers, 10 percent of all apprenticed lawyers, 5 percent of court clerks, 4 percent of magistrates, and up to 30 percent of all higher ranks of the judiciary. …  Jews were [also] overrepresented among university professors and students between 1870 and 1933.  For example, in 1909-1910…almost 12 percent of instructors at German universities were Jewish…  [I]n 1905-1906 Jewish students comprised 25 percent of the law and medical students…  The percentage of Jewish doctors was also quite high, especially in large cities, where they sometimes were a majority. …  [I]n Berlin around 1890, 25 percent of all children attending grammar school were Jewish…  (pp. 10–14)

Jewish influence was thus no idle matter. 

“Meanwhile,” Nietzsche continues, “they want and wish rather…to be absorbed and assimilated by Europe…; and this bent and impulse…should be noted well and accommodated: to that end it might be useful and fair to expel the anti-Semitic screamers from the country.”  Again, he sees the Jews as useful examples of racial toughness and coherence.  And more importantly, they hold an important lesson in the creation of new value systems as a means of overcoming adversity, and exerting power.  The typical German anti-Semite does not understand this; he just hates all Jews and wants to get rid of them. For Nietzsche, [Jews] are detestable but also useful and instructive.  A truly strong German nation could easily accommodate a percent or two of Jews.

Nietzsche is emphatic that the value of the Jews and Jewish morality is purely educational; it is not to be emulated.  He elaborates in section 195: 

The Jews have brought off that miraculous feat of an inversion of values, thanks to which life on earth has acquired a novel and dangerous attraction for a couple of millennia. …  Their prophets…were the first to use the word ‘world’ as a term of contempt.  This inversion of values…constitutes the significance of the Jewish people: they mark the beginning of the slave rebellion in morals.

The ‘inversion’—the defeat of the classic Greek/Roman values—was a remarkable accomplishment, and if we are now to move beyond the priestly Jewish slave values, we will need to perform yet another such act.  Only by thoroughly understanding the previous inversion can we hope to accomplish the next.

The year after Beyond Good and Evil was an exceptionally busy and productive one.  In addition to keeping continuous notebook entries — many of which would later become part of The Will to Power — Nietzsche wrote an important fifth chapter for his earlier book The Gay Science, and published one of his greatest works, On the Genealogy of Morals. 

Part 5 of Gay Science includes two relevant entries.  First is a laudatory passage on the Jewish love of logic and analysis.  “All of [the Jewish scholars] have a high regard for logic, that is, for compelling agreement by force of reasons…  For nothing is more democratic than logic; it is no respecter of persons and makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses” (sec. 348).  This has been a real benefit to all:  “Europe owes the Jews no small thanks for making people think more logically and for establishing cleaner intellectual habits…” 

As to their cultural influence, their presence in stage, theater, and press, Nietzsche offers the following thoughts: 

As for the Jews, the people who possess the art of adaptability par excellence, [my line of argument] suggests immediately that one might see them virtually as a world-historical arrangement for the production of actors, a veritable breeding ground for actors.  And it really is time to ask: What good actor today is not — a Jew?  The Jew as a born Litterat [‘man of letters’], as the true master of the European press, also exercises his power by virtue of his theatrical gifts; for the man of letters is essentially an actor: he plays the ‘expert,’ the ‘specialist.’  (sec. 361)

In Genealogy, Nietzsche begins to write in more overtly racial tones, speaking of the “blond Aryan” as the “master race,” or the “conqueror race.”  On one occasion he again dismisses those who do not see instructive value in the Jews:  “I also do not like these latest speculators in idealism, the anti-Semites, who today roll their eyes in a Christian-Aryan-Bourgeois manner and exhaust one’s patience by trying to rouse up all the horned-beast elements in people…” (III, sec. 26).  But on the other hand, the Jews and their morality come in for severe criticism—not because of their ability to succeed, but because of what they inherently are:

You will have already guessed how easily the priestly [i.e. Jewish] way of evaluating can split from the knightly-aristocratic, and then continue to develop into its opposite. ...  The knightly-aristocratic judgments of value have as their basic assumption a powerful physicality, a blooming, rich, even overflowing health, together with those things required to maintain these qualities—war, adventure, hunting, dancing, war games, and, in general, everything which involves strong, free, happy action. The priestly method of evaluating has, as we saw, other preconditions...  As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. The truly great haters in world history have always been priests...

Let us briefly consider the greatest example. Everything on earth which has been done against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the rulers” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge. In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by God), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred felt by the powerless), that is, to “only those who suffer are good; the poor, the powerless, the low are the only good people; the suffering, those in need, the sick, the ugly are also the only pious people; only they are blessed by God; for them alone there is salvation.—By contrast, you privileged and powerful people, you are for all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lecherous, the insatiable, the godless; you will also be the unblessed, the cursed, and the damned for all eternity!”

In connection with that huge and immeasurably disastrous initiative which the Jews launched with this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the sentence I wrote at another time—namely, that with the Jews the slave revolt in morality begins... (I, sec. 7)

The means by which this revolt was carried out was—Christianity.  Christian ‘love,’ according to Nietzsche, is little more than the “triumphant crown” of the Jewish tree of hatred.  This love acted “in pursuit of the goals of that hatred —  victory, spoil, and seduction — by the same impulse that drove the roots of that hatred deeper and deeper...into all that was profound and evil” (sec. 7)“What is certain,” he adds, is that under the sign of Christianity, “Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.” 

After some two thousand years, this process continues, slowly but surely: 

The ‘redemption’ of the human race [from the classical master values] is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized, Christianized, mob-ized (what do the words matter!).  The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious—there is plenty of time. (sec. 9)

Until we grasp this poisoning of modern man, we have no hope of liberating ourselves and attaining our higher destiny.

The many notebook entries that make up The Will to Power are difficult to interpret, both because the writings are a scattershot of ideas and observations, and also because these were never intended by Nietzsche to be published.  They appeared in book form only after his death, at the behest of his sister.  Still, we find a number of passages that are consistent with his published views, particularly on the subject at hand.

As usual, he writes in both laudatory and critical language.  In section 175 we read: 

The reality upon which Christianity could be raised was the little Jewish family of the Diaspora, with its warmth and affection, with its readiness to help and sustain one another…  To have recognized in this a form of power, to have recognized that this blissful condition was communicable, seductive, infectious to pagans also—that was [St.] Paul’s genius.

Nietzsche is sympathetic with the few remaining ‘noble-valued’ Germans, and understands their “present instinctive aversion to Jews: it is [their] hatred of the free and self-respecting orders for [Jews] who are pushing, and who combine timid and awkward gestures with an absurd opinion of their [own] worth” (sec. 186).  Later he elaborates on this “Jewish instinct of the ‘chosen’,” in which the Jews “claim all the virtues for themselves without further ado, and count the rest of the world their opposites; a profound sign of a vulgar soul” (sec. 197). And if one thing is certain, it is that the Jews are, in some sense, deeply untrustworthy:

People of the basest origin, in part rabble, outcasts not only from good but also from respectable society, raised away from even the smell of culture, without discipline, without knowledge, without the remotest suspicion that there is such a thing as conscience in spiritual matters; simply—Jews: with an instinctive ability to create an advantage, a means of seduction out of every superstitious supposition…  When Jews step forward as innocence itself, then the danger is great.  (sec. 199)

Nietzsche’s overall view on Judaism and its Christian offshoot is nicely summarized in this passage from Genealogy:

Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values “good and bad,” “good and evil” have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. ...  The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called “Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome.” To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.” And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.

By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of St. John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience...

The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality...

Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is that people bow down to today in Rome itself, as the personification of all the highest values—and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame—in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered.  (I, 16)

I close with a final passage from one of Nietzsche’s last works, The Anti-Christ (1888).  As expected, religious themes dominate this book, and of particular interest are his comments on the origin of Christianity from its Jewish foundation.  One can do little better than let Nietzsche speak for himself:

The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they preferred ... being at any price:  the price they had to pay was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer. ...  Considered psychologically, the Jewish nation is a nation of the toughest vital energy which ... took the side of all décadence instincts—not as being dominated by them but because it divined in them a power by means of which one can prevail against ‘the world.’  The Jews are the counterparts of décadents: they have been compelled to act as décadents to the point of illusion....  [T]his kind of man has a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense.  (sec. 24)

I trust it is clear that Nietzsche’s complex analysis of Judaism allows for multiple (mis)interpretations.  Selective use of individual sentences or fragments can paint him either as a philo- or anti-Semite, and both have been done.  But by examining his writings in detail we gain a reasonably coherent understanding of his position — of a strong dislike for Jews and for the morality that Judaism (and Christianity) have brought, but also an admiration for Jewish resiliency and ‘success’.  The bottom line, however, is clear:  Judaism is something that must be overcome.

It is interesting to speculate on what he would have thought of events of the 20th century.  Had he not contracted syphilis and died in 1900, he might well have lived to witness the early rise of Hitler and Nazism.  (He would have been 89 in 1933, when Hitler took power.)  Likely his support [for Hitler] would have been conditional at best.  Had he lived to see the emergence of the Holocaust industry, AIPAC, and  Jewish influence on American media and government, he might well have felt vindicated. 

Nietzsche’s analysis of the Jewish problem is powerful, insightful, and utterly unique.  It is of the sort that could never be conducted today by any ‘mainstream’ philosopher.  Let us be thankful that he lived and wrote in a time when such truly free thought was still possible.




Dr. Thomas Dalton (email him) is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2009).




  








127 comments:

  1. A Proud ProgressiveAugust 12, 2014 at 6:51 AM

    Stupid is what Stupid dies.
    That's the only way to discrib the post of FT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I almost deleted your remark. APL, because it belongs under the heading of "vituperation," which we do our best to discourage here, but decided to give you the chance to explain what led you to draw that conclusion.

    After all our purpose here is to elicit THOUGHT. besudes being an awful bore, merely trading insults and spewing venom at one another is a complete waste of time.

    Are you capable of formulating and articulating a reasoned point of view, APL, or are you just another volcano bubbling over with verbal vomit?

    ReplyDelete
  3. From what I understand in my study of modern history, anti-Semitism in Germany really took off running after WW1 -- thanks, in large part, to the great harm wrought by the treaty that ended WW1.

    I have to wonder if the Holocaust would even have happened if not for that treaty and the ensuing economic horrors that afflicted the people of Germany as the direct results of the treaty (as opposed to Jewish control of economic tools and academia.

    Nietzsche's take on the Roman Empire and the post-Roman-Empire period is quite interesting. Not sure that I agree, though.

    I must say that any people held as slaves or the equivalent thereof find a way to achieve cohesion -- if nothing else, as an effective way of guaranteeing the survival of as many as possible. The method of guaranteeing survival isn't always faith-based, but often is. An inherent part of almost any family seems to be a victimology mindset of one type or another.

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  4. (continuation)

    It is historical fact that Jews (Israelites) have been held in subjugation for millenia. Naturally, various rites and melancholic music were outcomes early on.

    Christians, too, have been held in subjugation, but not as long as Jews (Israelites).

    Africans in the West were held in subjugation for even fewer years than the above two.

    And we might say the same about Native Americans to a certain extent as well.

    By the term subjugation I do not necessarily mean as slaves in chains.

    Those who see grievances committed against themselves or their group, however that group is defined, always design, intentionally or not, a counter-culture movement of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the blog post:

    “Every nation, every man has disagreeable, even dangerous characteristics; it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an exception.”

    I guess that the concern is this: another atrocity on the scale of the Holocaust.

    Of course, automatic immunity from criticism is dangerous in the extreme as well -- perhaps in a different way than the ovens, but still dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The "Jew" TODAY is simply another form (racialized incarnation) of the Objet Petit "a" of capitalism. Tomorrow, it will be something "else".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
    Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell
    And the profit and loss.
    A current under sea
    Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
    He passes the stages of his age and youth
    Entering the whirlpool.
    Gentile or Jew
    O you who turn the wheel and look windward,
    Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

    ---

    'On Margate Sands.
    I can connect
    Nothing with nothing.
    The broken fingernails of dirty hands.
    My people humble people who expect
    Nothing.'
    la la
    To Carthage then I came
    Burning burning burning burning
    O Lord Thou pluckest me out
    O Lord Thou pluckest
    burning


    - T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is similar with anti-Semitism: Jew is the Master-Signifier, the ultimate empty point of reference which accounts for the (inconsistent) series of phenomena that bother people (corruption, moral and cultural decadence, sexual depravity, commercialization, class struggle and other social antagonisms ... ); as such, the figure of the Jew has to be sustained/encircled by the swarm of fantasies about their mysterious rituals and properties. 6 However, in the XXth century, this link between power and invisible threat gets in a way redoubled or reflected-into itself: it is no longer merely the existing power structure which, in order to sustain its efficiency, its hold over its subjects, has to rely on the fantasmatic dimension of the potential/invisible threat; the place of the threat is, rather, externalized, displaced into the Outside, the Enemy of the power - it is the invisible (and for that very reason all-powerful and omnipresent) threat of the Enemy that legitimizes the permanent state of emergency of the existing Power (Fascists invoked the threat of the Jewish conspiracy, Stalinists the threat of the class enemy up to today's "war on terror," of course). This invisible threat of the Enemy legitimizes the logic of the preemptive strike: precisely because the threat is virtual, it is too late to wait for its actualization, one has to strike in advance, before it will be too late... In other words, the omnipresent invisible threat of Terror legitimizes the all too visible protective measures of defense (which pose the only TRUE threat to democracy and human rights, of course)if the classic power functioned as the threat which was operative precisely by way of never actualizing itself, by way of remaining a threatening GESTURE (and this functioning reached its climax in the Cold War, with the the threat of the mutual nuclear destruction which HAD to remain a threat), with the war on terror, the invisible threat causes the incessant actualization - not of itself, but - of the measures against itself. The nuclear strike had to remain the threat of a strike, while the threat of the terrorist strike triggers the endless series of strikes against potential terrorists... The power which presents itself as being all the time under threat, living in mortal danger, and thus merely defending itself, is the most dangerous kind of power.

    Zizek, "Move the Underground"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you think the article was more about

    A) Nietzsche?

    B) The Jews?

    C) Thomas Dalton, Ph.D?

    WHY do you think what you think?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Accepting this as an accurate reflection Nietszche's complex opinions of the Jews and their profound impact on Western Civilization where might we find holes in Nietzsche's argument?

    What's wrong with referring to this singular group of people as "the Jews?"

    What do you think Nietzche really meant when he used that blanket term?

    Carry on, please. And don't be afraid to use your imagination. Virtually established knowledge originated in someone's imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would be more inclined to accept AOW's idea that anti-Semitism arose because of the tragic outcome of WWI, but we must remember that NIETZCHE died prematurely in 1900, and most of his work was written in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, so the attitudes were rife and highly developed throughout Europe and the British Isles LONG before WWI.

    The question we are not supposed to address, and from which most shrink back aghast is this. WHY have the Jews been singled out for persecution, subjugation and exile since the beginning of their known history?

    It is considered "anti-Semitic" even to ASK such a question today.

    I stick my neck out, as it were, periodically, because of my deep and abiding conviction that NO ADULT should be FORBIDDEN to discuss anything, especially in public or semi-public discussion forums such as this.

    Only NURDER, MAYHEM, RAPE, KIDNAPPING, VANDALISM, THEFT and EXTORTION should be forbidden.

    Naturally, I'm not talking about Christmas Dinner with the Family or Sunday School Picnics, or Card Club gatherings, etc. DECENt people are still inclined to use restraint on such occasions -- as well they should be.

    LEFTISTS, however, have spoiled many a pleasant social gathering by INSISTING on giving LECTURES about controversial topics everyone else would prefer to avoid.

    Maybe in this post-Limbaugh era Conservatives do this too, but it has yet to happen in my admittedly limited experience.

    What has your experience been in this area?

    ReplyDelete
  12. FT,
    I would be more inclined to accept AOW's idea that anti-Semitism arose because of the tragic outcome of WWI, but we must remember that NIETZCHE died prematurely in 1900, and most of his work was written in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, so the attitudes were rife and highly developed throughout Europe and the British Isles LONG before WWI.

    Point of clarification: I did say "took off running." Apparently, much of what Nietzche mentioned was present earlier, but not stronger in Germany than anywhere else in Europe -- until after WW1.

    ReplyDelete
  13. FT,
    The question we are not supposed to address, and from which most shrink back aghast is this. WHY have the Jews been singled out for persecution, subjugation and exile since the beginning of their known history?

    How should be define since the beginning of their known history? After the Israelites' release from Egypt?

    I'm not sure that Abraham and his immediate descendants were particularly hated before the period of conquering "Canaan." Well, except for the natural animosity that Abraham and his immediate descendants faced because they held to a different system of values than the other peoples (tribes) around them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AOW makes an excellent point about increased anti-Semitism in Germany following the end of WWI. Having punitive economic sanctions imposed and losing territory which had been part of Germany prior to WWI certainly led to Hitler's fanaticism.

    The deciding factor that finally led to Germany's defeat in WWI was having America enter the war against Germany. So understanding why America entered the war when the American people were against it and even electing a President whose promise was that "he kept America out of the war"—although that promise was soon conveniently forgotten.

    There's a back story that I've seen that makes a lot of sense regarding a New York lawyer, Samuel Untermeyer, offering Woodrow Wilson a deal "he couldn't refuse".

    The information comes from a highly placed Jewish official in the Wilson administration who foresaw the direction the world was heading after the conclusion to the war and the pressure that Wilson exerted to have the League of Nations accepted from the world's most gracious benefactor, Woodrow Wilson, himself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I should also mention something else....The best way to rally the majority of the people is to target something, someone, or a group that the people can oppose and, therefore, be unified and strengthened as a nation.

    The Jews as a minority (and, perhaps, resented for other "reasons" as well) have made them a convenient target in that regard over the centuries.

    Just something that I felt that I should mention. I leave it to others to decide if the above statements by me have any worth.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Waylon,
    Interesting link! First time that I've seen that information.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not being an enthusiastic follower of Nietzsche I find that this long article seems to be less than forthright and quite ambiguous. He attempts to sell the notion that Jews and Christians are joined at the hip and merely separated by nothing more than a hyphen.

    I'm not a religious extremist by any means but I believe that Jesus Christ, although born a Jew, over time became an apostate of Judaism. Pretending that there is not a profound hatred of this man BECAUSE of his apostasy is simply NOT TRUE. Buried deeply within the entrails of Judaism is a profound hatred of Jesus Christ and all Christians. It is clearly expressed in the writings in the Talmud—the Talmud being the master Judeo religious doctrine used by the the elect of the religion. The Torah is a sanitized version for public consumption.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you, AOW. It's worthwhile reading.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Do you think the article was more about

    A) Nietzsche?

    B) The Jews?

    C) Thomas Dalton, Ph.D?

    WHY do you think what you think?


    As you know, I've read all of the works referenced and so I feel that the answer must be C. Nietzsche may have indeed said everything Dalton attributes to him, but I have always been convinced that Nietzsche didn't give a hoot about the Jews, except for the historical example they offered.

    The topic of "subjectivity" is also today much more widely discussed than it was in Nietzsche's.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Accepting this as an accurate reflection Nietszche's complex opinions of the Jews and their profound impact on Western Civilization where might we find holes in Nietzsche's argument?

    What's wrong with referring to this singular group of people as "the Jews?"

    What do you think Nietzche really meant when he used that blanket term?

    Carry on, please. And don't be afraid to use your imagination. Virtually established knowledge originated in someone's imagination.


    I wish that I had more time to discuss this topic... and regret not doing it justice.

    The hole in the argument isn't Nietzsche's, its' Dalton's, who put the collection of thoughts over decades into a single topically organized selection. What's wrong with the attribution, is that like a "generalization" could be made about relatively any "tribal" group. Whenever you "universalize" a topic, like love, you also bring out it's opposite, from which the universalization is derived (ie - love is born from indifference... but hate {it's opposite] can only emerge once "love" has distinguished itself from indifference). In this case, the Jew represents the "other" NOT part of the group. The "different" from out of a group of mostly "same", upon which one can now project "other" detrimental (good/bad::good/evil) qualities associated with "subjectivity". The slave morality of master/slave moralities is born out grouping desirable/undesirable qualities... but as we all know (Ecclesiastes 3), each, be they master or slave has its' appropriate "season".

    When Nietzsche used the term "Jew", he was referring to all those who are "subject" to another's rule. In other words, "slaves"... "herd members"... etc.

    And today "knowledge" is broadly conceived to be the "master" morality (and not a king). The the "subject supposed to know" is the university expert who "advises" the king or president. The "master" himself, be it king in a kingdom or citizen in a democracy, no longer "knows" or is required to "know".

    And so, all talk of "Jews" represents the discourse of the "hysteric". This is "Dalton's" position, even though he masquerades as the "subject supposed to know" (ala - PhD reference) and a part of the "university discourse".

    It is not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The blond beast "masters" were STRONG (Greeks/Romans). It made them "master". Today (postimodernism), the "smart guy" with all the knowledge is the "master"... or at least, he pretends to be the "subject supposed to know".

    The point is, no matter what, Gnothi Seauton will make you the master... unless you believe that the "expert" next door REALLY knows something that you don't.

    The problem is that scientists are supposed to know, but they do not. Science is helpless and covers up this helplessness with a deceptive screen of expert assurance. - Slavoj Zizek

    ReplyDelete
  22. I often quote: "We learn more about Peter from what he says about Paul than we learn about Paul."

    And so I think it is with Dr. Dalton. He gives himself away with the following words, especially the last sentence:

    "[S]ince they [Jews] are unavoidably going to ally themselves with the best aristocracy of Europe more and more with every year that passes, they will soon have created for themselves a goodly inheritance of spiritual and bodily demeanor: so that a century hence they will appear sufficiently noble not to make those they dominate ashamed to have them as masters. And that is what matters! … Europe may fall into their hands like a ripe fruit, if they would only just extend them."

    [In fact, as we know, it turned out to be America that fell into their hands, “like a ripe fruit.”]

    If words like that don't smack of a not-so-hidden agenda I can't imagine what would.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A. Soschia Liszt said

    F.T. is nothing but a vicious anti-Semite. Look at what he posted at AOW's blog today as an answer to Jim a Asylum Watch.

    Jim at Asylum WatchAugust 12, 2014 at 3:50:00 PM EDT

    "The Fabians understood over a century ago that America's capitalist- Christian culture could only be defeated from within. Joe McCarthy may have been a jerk, but he wasn't wrong."


    FreeThinkeAugust 12, 2014 at 5:13:00 PM EDT

    "AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

    "With one exception. The FABIANS for the most part were upper-class Britishers motivated by genuine humanitarian impulses. They were not Marxists. They set out to undermine the BRITISH Establishment in order to improve the lot of the working class, which truly was deplorable.

    "The Fabians were NOT out to destroy CHRISTIANITY and discredit all the magnificent achievements of Western Civilization. It took the vastly powerful, centuries-old hatred concentrated in the minds of the JEWISH intelligentsia in Europe to do that. Marxism was, is and aways will be a JEWISH Invention.

    "McCarthy was defeated not so much because he was an awkward, unsophisticated, ham-fisted rube with no savoir faire, but because nearly 100% of the targets of his investigation just happened to be JEWS.

    "And guess what? Virtually ALL of them REALLY WERE COMMUNISTS. The Venona Papers bear this out, I believe, and pretty much exonerate McCarthy.

    "Just read David Horowitz's Radical Son, if you don't believe me. Horowitz is one of those very rare Jews who will ADMIT the vastly destructive influence Jewish Intellectuals have had on American society. He knows where all the bodies are buried, and isn't afraid to tell you.

    "Michael Savage is another pointedly Jewish man who fiercely and fearlessly has denounced the VILE influences that have brought this country to her knees.

    "God bless them both for telling the Truth.

    It is only the TRUTH that could possibly set us free."

    My God! What next? Pogroms? A reenactment of Kristallnacht? New concentration camps hidden high up in the Rocky Mountains and remote places in Idaho and Montana? Bernie Sanders burned at the stake?

    STOP THE MADNESS.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The inscription on that picture at the bottom of the article is worth noting, FT.


    "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    I'm not so sure about the article, itself. It feels too polemical to me, or as you might say "tendentious." Your Mr. Dalton obviously dislikes Jews, and seems to want to "prove" the maltreatment they received was justified. He may even be a Holocaust denier.


    ---------> Katharine Heartburn

    ReplyDelete
  25. FT,
    I see that "A. Soschia Liszt" is trolling my blog to try to find ammunition to fire at others.

    Sheesh.

    Some people apparently do not have enough to do. Must be nice luxury -- a luxury that I don't have.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Isn't it true that many Communist leaders were/are Jews?

    ReplyDelete
  27. No they were Blacks

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anti-Semites are becoming just as BAD as progressives are.

    Who is an anti-semite? One who hates Jews more than he has good reason to.

    This is a useful way at looking at the issue of criticism of Israel. It’s OK to criticize Israel, but if you criticize it out of proportion to criticism of other countries, including those with terrible human rights records, so lets be truthful about this. If you are a progressive you’re an anti-Semite.

    Uncle Barack supported Israel not out of any love of the Jews, but purely to gain support from the Jews.

    And by the way, I'm not trying to be a "Troll" only a truthful comentor. Progressives see everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with their views as "Trolls"

    ReplyDelete
  29. A. Soschia Liszt,
    Did FT state that he approved of the Holocaust, pogroms, etc.?

    ------------

    Perhaps I should have used the term trawl?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didn't say that he didn't approve either... Did he!

      Delete
  30. In My Humble Opinion!August 13, 2014 at 10:32 AM

    It's time for the barbaric radical extreme flea infested and lice riddled anti-Semitic terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, progressives et al to either advance into the 21 st century leaving the 7th century cult of Islam behind or face the consequences. No matter who they may be!

    ReplyDelete
  31. A. Soschia Liszt, you don't exist, so please pipe down. I made you up and blatantly quoted myself at AOW's blog and reported it as being quoted by you -- just to stir the pot a bit and see if anyone was awake.

    A dirty trick?

    I don't think so, because it was painfully obvious, to anyone who took the trouble to notice what was really going on.

    Few do, because they are too eager to Pounce and Denounce before thinking things through.

    We'd all do better to do a lot less talking and a great deal more listening.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Since the war in Gaza, I've noticed a lot of anti Semites anti- Semites, socialists, progressives and Marxists seem to be crawling out from under the rocks.
    What does this mean? First, it means that the left has obviously turned against Israel – and that the Hollywood left is willing to be bullied by the overall left. Hollywood is a largely Jewish town, but we’ve heard nothing from Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, or Harvey Weinstein. All of them love talking about the Holocaust – in that situation, the Jews were clearly the victims – but none of them want to talk about Israel. And if Hollywood Jews won’t stand up for Israel, why should George Clooney, ot these other creeps like Gary Oldman, or Mel Gibson?

    ReplyDelete
  33. William O'Malley seems to have a lot to say about everyone doesn't he?
    Why is it that every time Israel STARTS a war, everyone else is to blame but themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  34. every time Israel STARTS a war...

    Israel murdered Palestinian teenagers and then launched rockets into Gaza?

    Who knew?

    Get your facts straight before returning, Mr. Con

    ReplyDelete
  35. FT,
    just to stir the pot a bit and see if anyone was awake

    Well, I am!

    My name is Always On Watch for a reason. ;^)

    ReplyDelete
  36. A. Soschia Liszt.

    Clever, Freethinke but so clever that you tip off that it's you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Safest to assume that FT writes all the comments here, including this one.

    ReplyDelete
  38. FreeThinke said...

    Do you think the article was more about....?
    --------------------------
    I think that it was more about YOUR racism and Antisemitism, and that YOU are a FUCKING CONSERVATIVE ASS-HOLE

    ReplyDelete
  39. The acute perception and intellectual brilliance of the last few comments is so astonishing I have to say that for once I'm simply at a loss for words.

    (:-o

    Suffice it to say that whatever dreadful fate may await our degenerate society it will be richly deserved.

    As always, though, the innocent children and lives of the yet-unborn whose prospects have been irretrievably maimed, possibly eclipsed, because most of us failed to love and obey the Law of the Lord, constitute a monumental tragedy in the making.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe an ancient Greek philosopher was saying about the same thing FreeThinke. I can't seem to recall who it was. Socrates perhaps?

      Delete
  40. Father O'Malley,

    I agree with most of your statement, but don't you think it more than a bit odd that the Jewish people who for the most part run Hollywood, run the News Media, run the Pop Music Industry, run the Publishing Houses, run the Pubic Education Racket, dominate the Legal Profession, are vastly overrepresented in Congress, and who sit as Judges in courts at all levels in numbers vastly disproportionate to their tiny percentage of the total population, have for the most part sided with terrorists who happen to be the most virulent anti-Semites the world has ever known do not support Israel?

    After all, "liberalism," as we know it today, is largely an INVENTION of Jewish Intellectuals as is the UN. It was the UN acting under the direction of Great Britain and the United States who were responsible for FUNDING the modern state of Israel.

    And now these monstrously powerful forces -- all JEWS for the most part -- have turned against ISRAEL, because she has had the temerity, the unmitigated gall, the colossal effrontery to DARE to DEFEND herself against relentless attacks from the hundreds of millions of moronic, murderous, Arab-Muslim fiends who surround her.

    It's so preposterous it almost defies analysis.

    Could it be even faintly possible these people have become so enamored of profiting from their eternal victimhood that they DELIBERATELY set themselves up to REMAIN under attack?

    ReplyDelete
  41. If not the Jews, then who?
    Who would be the underminers of our society?
    The blacks?
    The Mexicans?
    The "Cons", Evangelicals, WASPs?

    It's nice to have someone to blame
    for America's decline.

    ...Only... you need not look farther than your bathroom mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Horse puckey, Thersites! I'm sorry -- and very surprised --you feel that way. I don't blame "the Jews," as a whole, but the evidence that Jewish INTELLECTUALS have played a very large part in our undoing is undeniable. It's OUT THERE for anyone with eyes in his head.

    I'm not going to go through the litany again, but it might be more useful if we tried to list NON-Jewish influences that brought Marxism into the mainstream of Western Civilization.

    I'm sure they exist, but the difference between an honest, well-meaning desire to effect much needed reforms and a crafty, insidious AGENDA to upend society, discredit and destroy its norms, then take over its power structure is something else entirely.

    That IS what has happened, and as we all know, it stinks to high heaven.

    Yes it would take several volumes to cover all the complex factors that brought this travesty into being, but we have to start somewhere.

    If you have a more plausible explanation as to how we got where we are, I'd love to hear it. I don't like his any more than you do.BUT, as the saying goes, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," only it's not Denmark. It's in Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Freud, Gimers, emma Goldman, Rosa Luxembourg, the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky, the "New York Intellectuals," Julius and Ethe Rosenberg, and their host of followers, Morris Seligman Dees, Zinn, Chomsky, Sontag high among them. Lately we've had Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert -- all TERRIBLE influences.

    ReplyDelete
  43. By the way, I'm disappointed -- again and as usual == that no one seems to have noticed Edvard Munch's stunning portrait of Nietzsche. Munch's best known painting The Cry never ceases to startle, even after you've seen it a hundred times, but THIS portrait has about it a strikingly original beauty -- vivid, dramatic, revealing of great character.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nobody contributed more to a theory of communism than Friedrich Engels, FT. He was no Jew.

    We did it to ourselves. Non-Jewish fingerprints are ALL over it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ps - Marx and Engels would have gotten nowhere w/o Hegel.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ps - and even though Marx has Jewish ancestors, he was baptised a Lutheran.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Speaking of Munch, you don't suppose that Nietzsche is pictured as standing on a bridge...

    “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss.

    A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.

    What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.

    I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

    I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.

    I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

    I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeks he his own down-going.

    I love him who labors and invents, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeks he his own down-going.

    I love him who loves his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going, and an arrow of longing.

    I love him who reserves no share of spirit for himself, but wants to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walks he as spirit over the bridge.

    I love him who makes his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more.

    I love him who desires not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one's destiny to cling to.

    I love him whose soul is lavish, who wants no thanks and does not give back: for he always bestows, and desires not to keep for himself.

    I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favor, and who then asks: "Am I a dishonest player?"--for he is willing to succumb.

    I love him who scatters golden words in advance of his deeds, and always does more than he promises: for he seeks his own down-going.

    I love him who justifies the future ones, and redeems the past ones: for he is willing to succumb through the present ones.

    I love him who chastens his God, because he loves his God: for he must succumb through the wrath of his God.

    I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goes he willingly over the bridge.

    I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgets himself, and all things that are in him: thus all things become his down-going.

    I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causes his down-going.

    I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowers over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and succumb as heralds.

    Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the SUPERMAN.--”



    ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    ReplyDelete
  48. I Munch was the only thing I noticed. As for the rest, I am holding my nose.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Progressives defended the ‪#‎Vietnamese‬ while calling our troops murderers and rapists. The Progressives defended ‪#‎Iraqi‬'s while demanding Our ‪#‎troops‬ pay for war crimes. The Progressives defend the right for anyone to just come into our Country, ‪#‎illegally‬. The Progressives defend the building of ‪#‎Mosque‬ while demanding the removal of a ‪#‎religious‬ statues and American ‪#‎flags‬ on public lands. The Progressives defend the right to an ‪#‎abortion‬ . The Progressives defend terror group, Hamas while calling Israel a war criminal. The ‪#‎Progressives‬ prove daily just how ‪#‎Anti‬ ‪#‎American‬, anti ‪#‎Christian‬. It is time to take these people out of Government once and for all. Remove, vote out every Democrat possible in the November elections.. FUCK THE CHRISTIANS
    And FUCK Gay Marriage as well.

    ReplyDelete
  50. After reading the remark above, all I can say is that I guess that FT must be pretty proud of his choice of blogging subjects now!


    Maybe you should be proud of your lack of brains!
    I wonder if you are comfortable in your mediocrity? Do you think that writing something shocking is going to bring fame and traffic to your miserable blog?

    I guess that you believe that being different is cool and that if you’re different, people are are going to want to read your sloppy crap. But instead, it's boring and your philosophy is stupid. And just look at who you have attracted to your stupid site!

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thank you for the link Inspector Aipac. It's pretty good satire. They've got the "mentality" down pat -- and by the way I love the droning-but-jazzed up version of Let My People Go murmuring subtly in the background. It adds just the right touch.

    The lamenting, complaining, endlessly dissatisfied tone and cntent of the dialogue really WAS the mode of parlance heard from a certain sector on the sidewalks of New York -- at least when I lived there.

    Nowadays, I've heard the motto has become "Talk British; think Yiddish." No one ever said these folks weren't smart.

    The once bearded Marxist now shaves and wears a Brooks Brothers suit -- or today's equivalent since Brooks was engulfed, devoured and destroyed by Garfinckels many years ago.

    ANYWAY, the ability to poke fun at oneself of which your video is a fine example is an important tool in ensuring one's survival. After all, self-deprecation most often is very disarming.

    ReplyDelete
  54. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The AntiSemitic FT reminds me of that 2 faced Fuck Rational Nation USA Lester .

    ReplyDelete
  57. Waylon providing a most interesting link in his post above. Whether it's strictly true or not I cannot say, but the lengthy article cited is certainly worth perusing, if only to learn how "The Enemy" thinks, if you regard him as "The Enemy."

    We quote here only the INTRODUCTION and TABLE of CONTENTS:

    Benjamin Freedman Speaks:

    A JEWISH DEFECTOR WARNS AMERICA

    by Benjamin H. Freedman (1961)

    Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing ... individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company.

    He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

    Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

    This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us - his warning to the West - is more urgent than ever before.




    _____ CONTENTS ______

    Zionists Rule the US

    The First World War

    Stalemate in 1916. Zionist Offer to get USA into the War

    USA Railroaded into World War I after Balfour Declaration

    Versailles

    Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity

    Freedman says World War I was started against Germany

    German Camps in 1933

    Germans fought Jewish Control

    1933: Jews Declare Sacred War (and Trade War) on Germany

    Reichskristallnacht and Rearmament

    1961: Nuclear War? For Israel?

    Secrecy (e.g. 1916 Zionist deal with USA) can happen again

    History of 'Jews'

    Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty

    George Washington's Vision

    ___________________________

    I haven't read all of it yet, but thank Waylon for providing the link. if YOU want to see it for yourself, please go back to Waylon's post and click on it there, since I haven't sufficient skill to give you a "hot link," myself.

    If you merely want to hurl insults in my direction, go right ahead. I have left several of these to demonstrate the wit, great style, profundity and stunning intellectual; acumen of those who enjoy being unpleasant. MOST of the garbage will be jettisoned, however, because it constipates the flow of genuine discourse.

    ]NOTE: Use of the terrm "Jewish Tyranny" raises my hackles, because it seems too charged and obviously tendentious. I would have preferred the phrase "strong Jewish Influence" or "considerable Jewish influence."]




    ReplyDelete
  58. Thank you too, my multi-named friend, for the reference to HEGEL. Yes. I am aware that "Marxism" had its roots in Hegel's more original thought. It's only what the followers of Marx DID with that thought that matters, however.

    I am also aware of that old old dodge claiming Marx to have been a "Lutheran." Yes, of course, he was -- but not really. PLEASE!

    Just as Felix Mendelssohn's father to advance his interests socially and politcally converted to Christianity making his family nominal Christians, so too did the father of Karl Marx. HOWEVER, most Jews think of themselves as an ETHNICITY as much or more than they do followers of the faith called Judaism. That most Jews are atheists, but still strongly identify themselves as Jews is telling to say the least. EIGHTY=FIVE PERCENT of the Israelis today are ATHEISTS.

    ALSO, as often as I inveigh against The Frankfurt School, the members of whom were 100% Jewish, it should be acknowledged that they too got some of their most potent ideas from ANTONIO GRAMSCI, who was a notorious Italian malcontent-troublemaker, but certainly no Jew.

    Lenin and Stalin were not Jews either, but many many many of the architects, prime movers and enforcers of the Russian Revolution were in fact Russian Jews. [The information, long soft-pedalled in the West, is still available if you have doubts.]

    ReplyDelete
  59. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Most of the "enforcers" of the Islamic state in Spain were Jews, too. Do you blame the Jews for the Moorish Spain, as well?

    ReplyDelete
  61. FACT: Friedrich Engels was not Jewish in any sense of the term. This verbose, rather prickly blog "Semitic Controversies" (SC) provides ample evidence in support of this.

    http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/01/was-friedrich-engels-jewish.html

    Go see for yourself.

    Let me take this opportunity to say that whether or not the worldwide Communist-Socialist Movement was primarily a creature of Jewish Origin it still took a helluvalotta non-Jewish dopes and dupes to help it develop into the monstrous, murderous thing it became -- and remains to this very day.

    Unfortunately, most people are sheep not shepherds, and too many Pied Pipers are devilishly clever at masquerading as Shepherds.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Personally, I find plenty of blame to go round "outside" of international Jewry. Myself included.

    ReplyDelete
  63. A GENTLE REMINDER

    We welcome conversation
    But without vituperation.
    If your aim is vilification ––
    Other forms of denigration ––
    Alienation with self-justification ––
    We WILL use Comment Moderation.

    ReplyDelete
  64. SORRY! I should have added:

    Although we say it with deep sadness
    We don't suffer fools with gladness.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Where was AL Sharpton and Hayes when that Rabbi from NY was was murdered in Florida by two little PUNK minority youhs on bicycles No riots, no media circus, and NO Jackson and Shaprton.



    Where was AL Sharpton and Hayes when Christopher Lane was murdered by two minority youhs because they were bored. No riots, no media circus, no Jackson and Shaprton.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I know how much you hate the Frankfurt School, FT, but do you believe that Herbert Marcuse was wrong in his assessment of "man" as a one dimensional creature. (Obviously, he's speaking here of the "average" working stiff... not the "exceptional" man of genius)

    ReplyDelete
  68. WTF is wrong with black people? Looting local businesses & destroying property? REALLY?
    BLACKS kill other black’s, white’s, Hispanic’s, Asian’s, Cops, EVERYDAY in this country. Babies, grandmothers, parents, teens.... all in random acts of violence EVERY DAMN DAY.. Where is the damn outrage over that?
    When BLACKS kill, NO, there’s never an outrage over that, no looting of local businesses over that. No policing your own over that. But one white gets trigger happy (supposedly) and the whole damn neighborhood gets torched. Hell, the shooter doesn't even have to actually be white as long as he LOOKS white.

    You want the Cops to ease up on your communities? Start acting like you care, and stop acting like Animals and Savage’s...
    And Obama is complaining about the way the police are treating these Blacks? Give me a friggen break!
    The full speech.
    “I um I uh am, uh sorry to umm uh hear about this uh tragedy. Moochelle and I were uh umm flying to uh, um, the Vineyard, to shoots me a round of Golf when we uh, um heard about this. I have err, um instructed uh my um errr Attorney General to conduct a um full investigation. In the meantime, feel free to take as many flat screens and hair extensions that you can carry. I um, uh thank you... And uhh, remember, No justice, No peace!
    Do I gots it right?

    ReplyDelete
  69. As the saying goes, "Even a broken clock still tells the right time twice a day."

    Marcuse's contempt for humanity knew no bounds, apparently.

    I am a Christian -- not a Fundy-Fanatic or a pious, longsuffering wearer of sackcloth and ashes -- but a Christian, nevertheless. Because of that I feel obligated -- duty bound -- to believe all people -- regardless of their outward appearance, perverse beliefs, or wayward behavior -- are inherently worthwhile, potentially redeemable, and therefore, worthy of respect.

    I feel it's a duty to love everyone, and never give up hope that someday they may "see the light," HOWEVER, that does not mean i have to LIKE them.

    There is a world of difference between dutiful Christian Love and a natural affinity that leads to genuine comradeship, and sometimes erotic passion. It would be a great mistake to categorize the Love that emanates from the valiant attempt to maintain a Christian Conscience as "hypocrisy: as the enemies of God-Christ are wont to do.

    Using "The Devil' once again as a convenient metaphor for the urges we all have to abuse ourselves, and do stupid, cruel, destructive things to others, I have to say once more that The Devil has always been able to present himself as seductive, supremely attractive and highly credible as he panders to our weakest, stupidest, most venal, selfish instincts and deadly desires.

    Lucifer, as he was also called, was "the most beautiful of all God's angels." Ironic, isn't it, that The Prince of Darkness should have begun his existence with a name meaning "Bearer of Light?"

    As C.S. Lewis has said, "Satan's greatest accomplishment to date has been his success in persuading the bulk of humanity that he doesn't exist."

    Marcuse and all his benighted ilk were and still are The Devil's Disciples. That is not saying he was unintelligent -- only that he and those others were devoted to promoting dissension, confusion, corruption, and perversion, which qualifies them as moral imbeciles -- to put it kindly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duty or obligation?

      Duty is a word loved by statists and control freaks.

      The word duty negates choice and is intended to coerce compliance with authority. Whether or not complying is ethical or not.

      Delete
  70. Rusty, you make good points, but they're not properly related to this thread. Please give us no more about the current state of race relations and police brutality, etc. unless we focus on those issues.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I LOVE Bullwinkle, Thersites.

    Shades of my adolescence! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  72. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  73. What a poor, pathetic excuse for a man you are Free-Ass-Hole.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This blog and this blogger is very disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I'm not in Marcuse's camp when it becomes prescriptive, as in his "Eros and Civilization", but I do agree with his characterization of it, and that we do have something of a problem on our hands.

    My personally preferred presciption is to "legally" cap corporate operations at the top end of control and push the 1% ownership level further down into the general population, at a minimum, to the upper quintile.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I took the liberty to check out your referenced link above, FT, to "semitic-controversies". I came away with the impression that it's more of a "reactionary" blogspot attempting to stomp on any opinion that might awaken the besotted Goyim to the dire state of affairs in which they find themselves today.

    Specifically mentioned was a blog "Veterans Today" which, of course, publishes an unvarnished take on world affairs which do reflect badly on the tribe of the chosen. The publishers apparently are all former servicemen who have earned the right to form their own opinions and speak them freely—being that they've earned the right by serving the country in harms way in some of the more recent armed interventions over the years.

    "Editor's note: I knew Robin Williams. We had only met a few times, years ago. He exuded anger and passion even those many decades ago. His films always represented humanity. Is it a reasonable statement that watching what we are seeing today was too much for him, Gaza, ISIS, vanishing airliners and the sea of blatant lies we are subjected to? What decent person could survive Hollywood?

    We have reached a new level of insanity. The ADL has sent out "talking points" asking their "constituents," creeps, toadies, trolls and untermenschen, to write nasty little emails to journalists who tell the truth about the Israeli genocide. We are being called "Jew haters."

    The ADL has decided, speaking on behalf of the world's Jewish population, that being "Jewish" and murdering children are "one in the same." Attacking child killers is "Jew hating." If Jews around the world are willing to quietly accept this label and accept Foxman's use of them in support of war crimes and genocide, the label should stick.

    Thus far, many have spoken up, not enough but many.

    Let us not forget the others, even Vladimir Putin is silent on Gaza. We have defined, not "Jewishness" as a criminal cult but something far broader. If humanity is a herd to be culled, then those no deserving of the oxygen they are wasting are now defining themselves. Consider this a rare gift, having the opportunity to look around and see the ignorant, the sub-human stand to be identified. We at Veterans Today know that 99% aren't Jews and that silence is now and will always be the real crime against humanity."

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/

    That's their take on the suicide of Robin Williams.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @FT --- FACT: Friedrich Engels was not Jewish
    -----
    As if it matters.

    But Lauren Bacall was.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Thersites,

    The distressed creature in The Cry is also standing in a bridge, as you may recall.

    I'm not a great student of Munch's work, so I don't know how often he used bridges. I suppose they are a symbol for "Transition" or "Suspension over The Abyss," or possibly "Uncertainty and Indecision?"

    I admire his work, but I couldn't imagine living with it, could you?

    It seems so fraught with pain and anxiety.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Les, since you are not a religious person I suspect you don't understand what Christians mean by "Duty." It has nothing whatsoever to do with Statism or authoritarianism. It is simply an obligation we have to ourselves to do what we believe to be morally right under al circumstances. One of the major purposes there is to maintain a clear conscience in the hope of purifying one's soul.

    It's a highly personal thing -- a relationship strictly between oneself and God -- and has nothing to do with temporal authority, although we are advised to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

    I'm sure you realize that "Caesar" has become a metaphor for Temporal Authority and should not to be taken literally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect you removed reasoned and respectful response to your comment.

      It's all good, we both recognize the truth in my response, although I know it didn't nicely fit the narrative.

      Delete
  80. Funny about "The Scream". At one end of "the bridge" lies a normal civilized couple... at the other, an anguished, screaming "loon". ;)

    ReplyDelete
  81. ...as for his work, I find van Gogh the more original.

    ReplyDelete
  82. ps - Here's a little ketchup to spice up your German sausages.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Good morning! The Flamenco-style tribute to Ketchup, if that's what it was, is certainly a change of pace, Senor.

    <}c;(=

    ReplyDelete
  84. I'd best get my culo down to South Beach donde las chicas son tan caliente! Y yo los refrescaria!

    ReplyDelete
  85. You MUST read and LISTEN to this presentation. "Dancing Under the Gallows."

    http://www.arttherapyblog.com/videos/alice-herz-sommer-dancing-under-the-gallows/#.U-4GJyiRvP1

    If anyone ever knew The Secret of Life" surely this dear woman discovered -- and lived by it till the very end.

    You and I have no right to feel sorry for ourselves. Sadness and loss may be inevitable parts of life. Suffering may be legitimate, but giving up on life to become biter cynical and filled with hatred and resentment is not.

    I hope you may draw strength and hope from this.

    Alice Herz-Spmmer died on February 23 this year -- at age 110, but I have little doubt she passed away with a smile on her face and a song in her heart.

    She, who had been taken from her comfortable home and successful career as a concert pianist by the Nazis, separated from her husband, and placed with her little son in Theresienstadt. While there, she performed over a hundred concerts. Her little boy sang in a Children's Opera written by the prisoners most of whom were high ranking musicians and artists. Both she and her son survived the Holocaust. The beloved husband and father did not.

    Instead of becoming bitter, self-pitying, and consumed by a fierce desire for revenge, she lived with such grace, dignity, sweetness and devotion to the Truth that is Beauty she was able to say after having lived over a hundred years, "Life is beautiful. Everything that happens to us is a Gift."

    Surely Alice Herz-Sommers, the Last Holocaust Survivor, deserves to be seen as The Perfect Role Model for all humanity to follow.

    She believed herself to be BLEST -- "the most fortunate of women." BECAUSE she believed it, it was so.

    ReplyDelete
  86. “In the final analysis, the questions of why bad things happen to good people transmutes itself into some very different questions, no longer asking why something happened, but asking how we will respond, what we intend to do now that it happened.”


    ~ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    ReplyDelete
  87. “Some day, after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love. Then for the second time in the history of the world, we will have discovered fire.”


    ~ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    ReplyDelete
  88. W/O music, the Jew is merely another musekmann.

    ReplyDelete
  89. from the link, above...

    here is it how Jean Amery, a survivors of the Holocaust who along with Primo Levi has been acclaimed as the most insightful and sensitive analyst of the camp, has to say on this: "The so-called Mussulman, as the camp language termed the prisoner who was giving up and was given up by his comrades, no longer had room in his consciousness for the contrasts good or bad, noble or base, intellectual or unintellectual. He was a staggering corpse, a bundle of physical functions in its last convulsions." Significantly, however, this terse remark ends with a summary dismissal: "As hard as it may be for us to do so, we must exclude him from our considerations." (Amery, Jean: At the Mind's Limits: Contemplations by a Survivor on Auschwitz and its Realities. Schocken Books, New York, 1986. p. 9)

    Levi is less laconic but equally evasive: "All the Muselmnner who finished in the gas chambers have the same story, or more exactly, have no story; they followed the slope down to the bottom, like streams that run down the sea. On their entry into the camp, through basic incapacity, or by misfortune, or through some banal incident, they are overcome before they can adapt themselves; ….. Their life is short but their numbers are endless; they, the Muselmnner, the drowned from the backbone of the camp, an anonymous mass, continuously renewed and always identical, of non-men who march and labour in silence, the divine spark dead within them, already too empty really to suffer. One hesitates to call them living: one hesitates to call their death death." (Levi, Primo: Survival in Auschwitz and the Reawakening: Two Memoirs. Summit Books, New York, 1986. p. 82.) To this, however, he adds an evasive footnote: "With the word 'Muselmann', the elders in the camp designated, for reasons unknown to me, the weak, the infirm, those who were doomed to be singled out."

    ReplyDelete
  90. Horse shit, why crucify the Jews? Why aren't you speaking out against those Savages who are stealing, rioting, burning, distorting other people 's property in St. Louis, MO ?
    Why not call a Sade , a Spade?
    In all my 52 years on this earth, I have never seen Jews acting like these Animals are acting.
    And I never saw a Rabbi promote anarchy like the Rev. Sharpton is and always does.
    Why not call a Spade a Spade?

    ReplyDelete
  91. from a summary of Zizek's critique of Levinas...

    The Muselmann
    Zizek emphasizes that the Muselmann is one who cannot answer the call of the other and who cannot be seen as addressing us--he is faceless, a blank wall. He rejects the possibility that Levinasian ethics can include the Muselmann because of the way that the Muselmann is an overlap of innocence and evil, and hence subverts the sense of absolute authenticity to which the idea of the face is supposed to attest.

    +1 Justice is not with regard to the neighbor

    Zizek argues for a cold justice that chooses against the face for the third. For him, this is an uprooting of justice, one that severs the 'contingent umbilical link that renders it embedded in a situation' (and, my question here is whether this marks a disagreement with Badiou's ethics of the situation or an agreement insofar as it is indifference to difference.)

    More specifically, Zizek argues in this regard that grounding ethics in the relationship to the Other's face is a priori impossible, since the limitation of our capacity to relate to Others' faces is the mark of our very finitude. In other words, the limitation of our ethical relation of responsibility toward the Other's face which necessitates the rise of the Third (the domain of regulations) us a positive condition of ethics, not simply its secondary supplement. If we deny this--in other word, if we stick to the postulate of a final translatability of the Third into a relation to the Other's face--we remain caught in the vicious cycle of 'understanding.'

    So, what is choosing the third? It is not choosing some kind of others with positive features; it is not recognition caught in some kind of imaginary or symbolic relationship to others. Rather, it is a kind of radical indifference to others, the abstraction of the law. This indifference is also the space of love, love for one who stands out from the multitude toward whom I am indifferent. And, this indifference is preferable to something like love for all insofar love for all relies on the logic of universality and its exception: there can only be an all whom I love insofar as there is one whom I hate. (Preferable, then, is the reformulation in terms of the feminine formula of sexuation: there is nobody whom I do not love--which is connected with I do not love you all (the all remains incomplete, non-all).


    - See more at: http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/03/zizeks_critique.html#sthash.eFPIBb3s.dpuf

    Love thy neighbor requires a legal/legislative "indifference" to create a space in which love can emerge.... a concept that the crop of "progressives" apparently have forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  92. ...and "affirmative action" does NOTHING but create a hatred of the black man by all non-blacks (as evidenced by Georgie, above).

    ReplyDelete
  93. America's decline into radical "subjectivity" has killed the "sovereign" of our Republican Democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "social justice" is neither term.

    ReplyDelete
  95. A curious use, indeed, of the term "Muselman!" I'd never heard of it before. But what does it matter what we choose to CALL anything?

    As Shakespeare so famously said, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

    I was particularly struck by the following passage, because it so perfectly describes most of the poor old souls who have been relegated by their families to the confines of a typical American nursing home:

    "The so-called Mussulman -- as the camp language termed the prisoner who was giving up and was given up by his comrades -- no longer had room in his consciousness for the contrasts good or bad, noble or base, intellectual or unintellectual. He was a staggering corpse, a bundle of physical functions in its last convulsions ."

    Having witnessed these places for many years on a routine basis, because of various family obligations, it has often occurred to me that a gentle, painless process of extermination might be the wisest, kindest thing anyone could do for The Living Dead, which is EXACTLY what we are, when we no longer recognize ourselves, our loved ones, or even our own humanity.

    Could it be that at the deepest level the American Nursing Home Phenomenon is every bit as cruel -- possibly crueler -- than Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen, Theresienstadt, et al.?

    ReplyDelete
  96. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I suppose it's possible the prisoners called the most pathetic of their fellow victims "Mussulmen" because Jewish hatred for Arab Muslims is as deeply ingrained and as virulent as Arab-Muslim hared of Jews?

    If the gruesome descriptions of violent conquest, barbaric annihilation and jubilant triumphalism over rival tribes [naturally cast in the role as "Enemies of God"] in the Old Testament, -- whether historically accurate or merely mythological, -- don't constitute the basis for the animosity we suffer with today, I can't imagine what might give a better explanation, can you?

    ReplyDelete
  98. "Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything that reaches beyond their own understanding."

    ~ La Rochefoucauld


    Yes, indeed, but wise minds dismiss what their instincts identify as deadly poison or trash. Only a fool would advise us to regard all phenomena as equal in value.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  99. The reason so few people are agreeable in conversation is that each is thinking more about what he intends to say rather than what others are saying.


    ~ La Rochefoucauld

    ReplyDelete
  100. You should open a nursing home FT. Call it "Arbeit macht frei"... and emphasize the physical therapy aspects of your nursing care. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  101. I honestly don't know what you're talking about, Les. I haven't removed a thing from you or anything that pertained to you.

    Please stop these accusations.

    If you want to add to the discussion, fine, but these personal remarks don't help move us in that direction. They serve only to distract others and muddy up the board.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I find it both disappointing -- and perplexing -- that no ine has responded so far to this unique, dramatic assertion:

    Nietzsche's contention that CHRISTIANITY is in effect The Ultimate Weapon devised by Jews to conquer and destroy what Nietzsche regarded as Nature and Nobility may seem absurd, but it's a point of view I'd never heard articulated before, and I can understand why he saw logic in it. Nietzsche was after all an atheist, so naturally his worldview would be refracted through that prism.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I left a comment in response to your reply to my remarks on duty vs obligation. I did so prior to leaving for work at 7:00 AM this morning. Apparently the comment got lost in cyberspace or blogger malfunctioned when I pressed publish.

    No matter, perhaps next time.

    Have a nice weekend. I'm taking advantage of tax free weekend and replacing my outdated XP with 8.1, 23" monitor, and a 1 kerabyte external hard drive for local backup.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Actually, it's even worse than that. It's what enabled "Atheism" to emerge as an ideological viewpoint. It all comes down to Christ's utterance... "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"

    Before then, the very concept of G-d in Self-denial was unthinkable.

    And so you see, polytheism moved to monotheism, to atheism. The ideological cycle completes itself.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Now, that being said, it is well known, from Plato's Republic, that civilization, Nature's "opposite", requires a "Noble lie"... all that nobility necessary to the establishment of a "hierarchical" society... where cooperation allows individuals to "specialize" instead of requiring them to become "jacks of all trades". The result is the capitalist "division of labour"... as knowledge itself becomes "compartmented" accordingly. It represents the "death" of the nineteenth century polymath.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I'm sorry we missed that, Les. This medium is not perfectly reliable, as most of us know. What I try to do -- and often fail -- is to copy and paste comments into Word before posting. Obviously, that preserves the effort and makes it possible to use it again.

    I'm not sure anyone -- even the expert techies -- knows precisely why these mysterious disappearances occur.

    Tax-free weekend, eh? In TAXACHUSSETTS!?!?

    Well, I hope you enjoy it to your heart's content.

    If I had my way, every day would be a tax-free day. I wonder if anyone has ever done the math telling us how much the cost of living would diminish if the multi-layered tax burden under which we stagger were lifted?

    Might start a REVOLUTION! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  107. ps- I hate not being able to see my comments immediately. Please consider going off moderation and periodically scrubbing your board?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Now, this "specialization" of knowledge allows people to know a LOT about a very LITTLE. This deceive's them into believing that they know much more than they do.

    The deeper their specialized knowledge goes, the shallower their "generalized" knowledge becomes. And so, civilizations self-destruct. As men like "Obama" never learn what it takes to "rule", and their hubris keeps them in denial about it.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Hmmm, Going from Many to One to None.

    Here is the significance of the ideological difference between One and Zero and/or Many.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Government does need revenues to provide neccessary services and maintain the infrastructure. Beyond that you are right, billions would be retained by the laboring tax paying citizenry.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Yes, of course, we must fund a government, Les. The question is HOW and to what EXTENT?

    Dame Rebecca West, novelist and essayist, once mistress to H.G. Wells, if that counts for anything, said this in her engaging novel The Fountain Overflows:

    The most important question we are forever trying and failing to answer conclusively is "How much does the State owe the Individual, and how much does the Individual owe the State?"

    Rebecca West was a member of the intelligentsia of her time -- a "Red" -- a leftist -- a progressive. Not a Communist but a Fabian Socialist, I'm sure. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries being a "Red" was quite respectable. It was considered intellectually advanced, avant garde, possibly following a Shining Path to a Brighter Future.

    In Britain, particularly, many of the brightest and best persuaded themselves to promote Socialism, because the conditions under which working class lived after the Industrial Revolution really were appalling.

    Earlier, Charles Dickens made his empathy for the London Poor -- even the "lowlife scum" --abundantly clear. I could never be persuaded to believe, however, that Dickens' novels were politically motivated polemics or agenda-driven propaganda. He wrote primarily to entertain, and in the process managed to arouse awareness of and sympathy for the sort of people most had probably never thought much about one way or the other.

    I believe the motives of the original thinkers of the left were mostly good. What I grew to despise and utterly reject were those who soon perverted the original high-minded altruism and transformed it into the malicious, spiteful, Power Grabbing Agenda determined to upend society and grab control through stealth, deceit, seduction, sophistry, guile and bloody revolution.

    As with the elemental force we call fire, the uses and methods of Reform movements are best characterized by the methods used to achieve what-may-well-be legitimate aims.

    However, the Cultural Marxists believed that in their case whatever means they felt capable of using to achieve their goal were legitimate -- even virtuous -- because their AIM was so fine, so good, so noble, so pure, so necessary that it MUST be considered perfectly all right to lie, steal, cheat, kill and maim to achieve it.

    We see today what has come of it -- a world in turmoil -- Civilization's very existence threatened. The Dawn of a New Dark Age.

    ReplyDelete
  112. My hope is of course that these United States work its way through the the political gridlock and govern as our wise classical liberal founders would have it.

    Civilization's very existance is threatened more by religous fanaticism verging on cultism (extreme jihadist Islam) than anything els IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Les, I see Marxism -- a term of convenience; please don't hold me to recondite academic distinctions -- as a form of radical religion as well. ALL of these extremes are pernicious -- inimical to the best interests of Civilization.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.