“What is the best way for confronting the West’s anti-Islam campaign?”

On 20 September 2012  Kevin Barrett posted an important article on the Press TV website.  Barrett argued that Benjamin Netanyahu is behaving in as irrational and dangerous a fashion as he is, inflaming fears of war against Iran, in an effort to elect Mitt Romney to the presidency and  keep the lid on 9/11.
The essence of Barrett’s charge is that the American people have been lied to about the perpetrators of 9/11:  as Alan Sabrosky claims, Mossad and CIA planned and carried out the attack on the World Trade Center that killed 3,000 innocent civilians.
Americans have been lied to in order to frighten them into a war against Iraq (that cost hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives).  Bibi is desperate to keep that lie covered up, lest he hang for his/Israel’s part in it.
A poll was appended to Barrett’s article.  It asked the question: “What is the best way for confronting the West’s anti-Islam campaign?”
The poll offered the following options, and as of noon EST 21 Sept 2012 displayed these results:
Poll
What is the best way for confronting the West’s anti-Islam campaign?
  • 1) Intensifying worldwide demonstrations. 11 %
  • 2) Ignoring Islamophobic and sacrilegious acts. 18 %
  • 3) Public pressure on Muslim states to cut US ties. 59 %
  • 4) Criticizing those behind the desecration of Islam. 12 %

In my Solonic opinion, the option most obviously suggested by the article was not included in the choices the Poll offered.

The best answer, in my opinion, to the question: “What is the best way for confronting the West’s anti-Islam campaign?”

Tell the truth.

Tell the truth about Esther:  there was no scheme to “annihilate Jews.”
Tell the truth about the difference between mythology and “divine revelation.”  All cultures have unifying myths; they understand them as their own and rely upon them for cultural cohesion.  But cultures that are self-aware understand that their myths are myths, that history is history — fact based, not ego-driven; that spiritual enlightenment and “salvation” is an individual and personal matter.
Tell the truth about “2000 years of antisemitism.”  According to David Biale’s “Cultures of the Jews,” the first instance of persecution of Jews in  post-Roman Christian Europe occurred in 1095 in the context of the Crusades. A majority of the Jews who died in that event were suicides.
Tell the truth about zionist complicity in the blockade on German civilians that cost the lives of 800,000 German civilians (but apparently, none of whom were Jewish) between 1915-1919.
Tell the truth about the complicity of the Warburgs, Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis and a dozen other zionists in “stabbing Germany in the back” at Versailles.
Tell the truth about Churchill’s warmongering-for-pay:  how he received large cash contributions from the Focus Group, which included wealthy Jewish leaders and heads of major oil companies, whose agenda was to destroy Germany to preserve the British empire and maintain British trade routes to its colonies.
Tell the truth about the Jewish declaration of war on Germany in March 1933.  Confess the fact of the actions;Own up to it and Own its consequences, which were just as they were fully intended to be.
Tell the truth about Louis Brandeis’s February 1933 diktat that “All Jews must leave Germany.”
Tell the truth about Chaim Weizmann’s and Erich Mendelsohn’s involvement in the firebombing of Germany that incinerated 600,000 German citizens, but, apparently, not a single Jewish person died in the Allied attacks.  (After building Chaim Weizmann’s residence at Rehovoth in ~1937, Erich Mendelsohn left Palestine for the USA, where, in ~1941 he volunteered to assist the US Air Force and Standard Oil company to design the “most efficient” means of creating a firestorm to destroy the maximum number of working class Germans and their residences. Surely Weizmann was aware of this project.  In the same time frame, David Ben Gurion and other key Palestine-based Jewish leaders, who must surely have included Weizmann, fretted over whether to urge Americans to bomb Auschwitz.  The first concensus decision, enunciated by Ben Gurion, was: “We cannot take on the responsibility for a bombing that could cause the death of even one Jew.”America’s Failure to Bomb Auschwitz )
Tell the truth about the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz, Dachau, etc.
Tell the truth about Eisenhower’s complicity in carrying out the genocidal plan of Henry Morgenthau to annihilate the German people.
Tell the truth about Israeli as well as American treachery  in Shah Pahlavi’s regime.
Tell the truth about why the United States invaded Iraq in 1991.
Tell the truth about 9/11.
Tell the truth about why the United States assaulted Afghanistan.
Tell the truth about why the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
Tell the truth about United States and Israeli support for the assault on Syria.
Tell the truth about ( Solon speculates) the west’s involvement in the assassination of its own diplomat, (reminiscent of Herschel Grynszpan’s assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath, an action which set off Crystal Night, and called down upon the German government the hatred of all the world. It is not at all unlikely that the 1938 event was a ‘false flag’ operation calculated to do exactly what it accomplished.)

American Christians must be called to account for their support for genocide.

More importantly, Christians all over the world must be called to account for attempts at subverting indigenous cultures.  Proselytizing should be made Off Limits for 50 years:  Christians should tend their own flocks, and men and women of other faiths and cultures should remain free of dandled suasions to forsake their faiths in exchange for false claims and ‘shiney toys.’

Tell the truth.

Then ask forgiveness.

Then accept culpability and accountability.

Then make reparations.

Then submit to a “probationary period” during which the world will monitor behavior to ensure that the lessons of past bad acts have been learned, and declarations to reform are genuine.

THEN, and only then, can Americans, Israelis, zionists, Westerners, be trusted to take their place among the nations.

And ONLY then can those many Muslims who have been oppressed for decades and generations also be called upon to calm their rage, lay down their swords, and parlay in peace.

= = =

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad conducted one of the bravest acts of any leader in recent memory:  he called together men and women whose research into and perspective on the holocaust led to conclusions different from the enforced narrative.

For that crime, attempting to tell the truth, Ahmadinejad has been relentlessly vilified and the Iranian people subject to collective punishment.

= = =

In her book, “The Great Transformation:  The Beginnings of Our Religious Traditions,” Karen Armstrong writes:

“The Avestan Aryans called their gods daevas (“the shining ones”) and amesha (“the immortals”).  …They were not omnipotent and had no control over the cosmos.  Like human beings and all natural forces, they had to submit to the sacred order that held the universe together.  Thanks to this order, the seasons succeeded one another in due course …the crops grew each year in the appointed month.  The Avestan Aryans called this order asha… It made life possible, keeping everything in its proper place and defining what was true and correct.

“Human society also depended upon this sacred order.  People had to make firm, binding agreements about grazing rights, the herding of cattle, marriage, and the exchange of goods. Translated into social terms, asha meant loyalty, truth, and respect, the ideals embodied by Varuna, the guardian of order, and Mithra, his assistant.  These gods supervised all covenant agreements that were sealed by a solemn oath.  [In contrast, on Yom Kippur, it is said that Jewish rituals give one leave to renege on solemn oaths.]  The Aryans took the spoken word very seriously. …As far as we know, the Aryans did not make effigies of their gods.  Instead, they found that the act of listening brought them close to the sacred.  [In my one visit to a Muslim shrine, in Mashad, I witnessed how Muslim women surrounded themselves with the Infinite and sat in an attitude of humble listening to the divine.] Quite apart from its meaning, the very sound of a chant was holy; even a single syllable could encapsulate the divine. [A Muslim friend invited me to participate as a circle of women recited from the Quran, on a day in Ramadan.  I witnessed the care each woman took to speak the words precisely.] Similarly, a vow, once uttered, was eternally binding, and a lie was absolutely evil because it perverted the holy power inherent in the spoken word.  The Aryans would never lose this passion for absolute truthfulness.”

In contrast, over the past decades, the United States has conducted its affairs according to the protocol Ron Suskind reported on in 2004. In 2002, Suskind notes, he had written an article about Karen Hughes’s press office that rankled some in the White House.  He discussed the situation with an aide to the president, and learned this:

“The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” “

“Enlightenment principles and empiricism” are closely aligned with Aryan notions that reality resides in nature, and that “human beings and all the natural forces …had to submit to the sacred order that holds the universe together.”

Torah reflects a radically different view of the source of knowledge; it is reflected in the opening words of Torah: “In the beginning was the word.” In Hebrew epistemology, words create reality and not the other way around.  Thus, reality is limited only by the spiderwebs of ideas one could weave in his own mind — or dreams.  Since this idea base is so ephemeral, it is difficult to make an accounting of truth-value: a thing or a person either subscribes to the ideology, or does not, but the relationship of that ideology to nature and the world of reality are of secondary importance.

In the 1930s in Germany, Walther Grundmann attempted to separate Christianity as understood by Germans from a Hebrew matrix.  Germans had introduced a method of reading scripture that applied rationality to the text.  In this, German theologians deviated from the proclivities of British and American Christians.  American pastors damned the Germans for this apostasy, and declared that Germans were rightfully punished by war because they failed to honor the “inerrant word of God.”

Adolf Hitler tried to steer a middle course between competing faith systems in the Nazi era.  His claim that Germans were Aryans is more appropriately understood as a cultural claim, not a racial claim.  (It is undoubtedly true that the word “race” was used to designate shared cultural and ethnic values.  Until very recently, census questionnaires in the United States asked if one were “Caucasian.”  How many Americans who checked that box are aware that the Caucasus is the same general local as the original Aryans? Furthermore, recently, American leaders — former National Security chief Michael Hayden comes to mind — have taken to proclaiming that “It is in the American DNA to — XYZ.”  Such a statement amounts to racism.)

In other words, Aryan = Caucasian.  In Germany in the 1930s, Aryan meant little more than a distinction from Semitic because Aryans were Indo-European in geographic environment — ie. forests rather than deserts — and in language. All of these details-that-make-a-difference are swallowed up in the propagandist rants, “Hitler was evil,” and “Holocaust denier!”

As Armstrong assessed, Aryans are truth-tellers.

The men and women who subscribe to the ‘reality-inventing’ methods Suskind described are forced to spend prodigious energy enforcing a “reality” that has no being in nature.  The frustration inevitably engendered by the constant need to revise “reality” finds expression in destructiveness.  Erich Mendelsohn offers an  intriguing case study in the compulsion to destroy that which exists in nature and which many generations of people before him have created, when the visions in his head are not validated by the natural and observed world surrounding him.

The only way forward for those who “invent reality” and those who “submit to the sacred order that holds the universe together” is Truth.

Among Jesus last words were, What is Truth?

Whatever truth is, we know that it cannot be phosphorus bombs and assassinations and mass starvation and economic destruction and plunder.  There is nothing natural about deliberately starving an entire people to death.

What is the best way for confronting the West’s anti-Islam campaign?

It is the same as the best way for creating a renaissance of the highest values of Jesus: Tell the truth.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“We are very scared of what Israel might do” – Commenter on Atlantic blog

On 19 September 2o12, Evan Thomas posted an article on the Atlantic blog, titled “The Brilliant Prudence of Dwight Eisenhower.”I

This exchange took place in the comments section:

Harry Huntington:

“Of course the key point for the President today was that when the Cold War was in full flower, President Eisenhower was not afraid to meet with the leaders of the Soviet Union, or the country that was then the US’s leading enemy.  When does President Obama plan to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Camp David? Perhaps Obama should invite Ahmadinejad and his family to meet the Obama family?  Eisenhower’s presidency offers up other fine examples as well, but the most important might be that in the nuclear era, you are obliged as President to meet and talk with “the enemy.”  You cannot simply drop bombs and expect the other side to make nice.  Eisenhower knew that from his time spent in two world wars (before he was President).   But the current President (and Mr. Romney too) are the smartest people in America.”

RobertSF replied to Huntington:

“That’s because we were genuinely afraid of the Soviet Union, but we’re not really afraid of Iran.  We don’t like Iran, nor they us, but we’re not afraid of them so we have nothing to gain by making peace with them.”

Huntington responded to Robert’s flight of irrationality with:

“Perhaps I am having a slow day.  If we are not afraid of Iran, why do we have three carrier battle groups in its neighborhood, and why is Israel pressing the United States to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.  I mean, the French have nuclear facilities and there is no pressure to bomb them.  So nuclear facilities by themselves are pretty benign.  It looks to me like we are very scared of Iran.  That is the perfect time for a summit meeting.”

RobertSF:

“We’re not existentially afraid of Iran.  Israel may be, but we’re not.  We were existentially afraid of the Soviet Union.  Notice that homeowners aren’t building concrete bunkers in their back yards out of fear of Iran.  They did during the 50s, out of fear of the Soviet Union.”

Carrington Ward joined the conversation:

“No way we’d be able to get all the relevant players to a summit.

Israel is very scared of Iran — with good reason.  Saudi Arabia is very scared of Iran, with better reason.

We are very scared of what Israel might do.  And we’re scared of what might happen to our friends in the House of Saud.  And so we’re still stuck with ‘dual containment.’

January 2013 might be the perfect time to put solar panels back on the White House.”

At this point, Solon to Croesus responded to Carrington Ward:

Let’s explore your comment, Carrington Ward:
Precisely WHAT “good reason” does Israel have to be “very scared of Iran?”
If Iran wished to harm Jews, they would start with the 30,000 Jews who live in Iran.  Instead, Iran has not even retaliated against those Jews or ANYONE for Israel’s assassination of five of Iran’s nuclear scientists, attacks on Iran’s infrastructure, Israel’s leadership of an economic ‘blockade’ of Iran.  Iran has NOT retaliated, after 17 years of punishment and demonization engineered by AIPAC.
Moreover, as Israel has informed the world since at least the mid-’80s, Iran is 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon.  Let me make that point kindergarten-clear:  Iran does not now have a nuclear weapon.  (Israel does.)
So who has “good reason” to be “scared” of whom?
You answer that in your next assertion:
“WE are very scared of what Israel might do.”
Look at that again:
WE ARE VERY SCARED OF WHAT ISRAEL MIGHT DO.
Unlike Iran, Israel has demonstrated the willingness to slaughter unarmed civilians on a massive scale — Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-9.
Israel has carried out assassinations, provocations, and demonizing propaganda against not only Iran and its leaders and people but also against the American people and their leaders.
Israel HAS an arsenal of nuclear weapons that is not under the control of ANY objective oversight.
As you say, “We are very scared of what Israel might do.”
The United States has the largest DEFENSE establishment and budget in the world.
And we deploy that DEFENSE capacity and budget to ‘defend’ against a nation that has not harmed the US, has little capacity to harm the US, has no demonstrated plan or tendency to harm the US, while perpetually supporting with money and weapons a state that HAS harmed the US, that has extensive capacity to cause the US further harm (i.e. by inflaming the Middle East); that does have uncontrolled nuclear weapons and that has demonstrated the willingness to use proscribed weapons against civilians, and about whom you and many Americans admit:

WE ARE VERY SCARED OF ISRAEL.

You are not alone, Carrington Ward.

In July 2010, at a forum at the Middle East Policy Center discussing “The Israel-Iran Linkage,” a member of the audience posed this question (quoted verbatim):

Q:  Okay.  I am Michele Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review.  And my question begins with something that Paul Pillar mentioned, which is – and it is in my view the most immediate danger that we face as a foreign policy issue and might be the highest priority, which is what do we do here in the United States to ward off a potential unilateral Israeli strike against Iran? 

I have to disagree with the comment that this has left the lexicon of Israeli policymakers. – while maybe openly, but certainly not behind the scenes.  I draw everyone’s attention to two big articles in the Times of London in the last year, complete with maps, what air routes will be taken, submarine capabilities, et cetera, which quotes a myriad of Israeli high policy sources that say we are ready, we are able and we are in the process of convincing the United States to go along with this.

I feared this for a long time since I read “Clean Break” back in 1996, which called for regime change in Iraq and then Iraq.  And I fear it more now after hearing Netanyahu’s interview while he was here and that everything is on the table.  And it’s been reinforced by some of the things that Mr. Indyk has said.  So what can we do to ward off an Israeli strike against Iran from a United States standpoint?

= = =

Isn’t it the job of the United States government to protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

And isn’t the first element of that commitment to properly identify the enemy?
Did Sun Tzu have anything to say about knowing who your enemy is?

___________

To his credit, Carrington Ward responded:

“You’re right, I neglected to mention that Israel has a fairly good deterrent of its own.

On the other hand, you can drive across Israel in a few hours, drive across Israel in a tank in a few hours more.

Various assortments of Israel’s neighbors have tried the latter project a couple times in living memory.

I have a modest degree of sympathy with Israeli efforts to build a strong defense force–mind you, I’m in no way happy with Israeli efforts to get past this ‘symptomatic response.’

I have no sympathy with the idea that we in the United States must harness our foreign policy strategy to Israel’s, not least because of the dependence it engenders in Israeli policy.

= = =

Ward gets credit for a civil response, but failed to grapple with the question I asked:  Does Iran pose a genuine threat to Israel? Define it.

No response.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric as “existential threat” to Israel

Comment on Netanyahu Shilling for Romney in Florida TV Ad, Tikun Olam, by Richard Silverstein, Sept. 20, 2012.

  In the comment section, mary wrote:  “why does Israel assume it is under a direct and immediate threat of a nuclear attack from Iran? Is it because of Ahmadinejhad’s florid, self-aggrandizing rhetoric? “

Solon to Croesus responded:
Definitely!! It must be!!
Because if the “existential threat” to Israel hinges on Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, that would explain purrfectly how it came to be that AIPAC wrote the first major sanctions against Iran in 1995, TEN YEARS before Ahmadinejad was elected to the presidency.
Before his election in 2005, Ahmadinejad had been mayor of Tehran, where he was on the short-list of the world’s most successful mayors of a major city.
But according to Israel’s own Yossi Melman in “Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran,” Ahmadinejad was on NOBODY’s radar before 2005:  MI6 (or is it -5?) knew nothing about him; ditto for CIA, and Mossad was equally in the dark about Ahmadinejad.
Quite a feat of prophecy to impose sanctions on Iran TEN YEARS before the major threat-or to Israel was known to the threat-ees.

2. On two specific occasions, one in 2008 at the AIPAC conference in DC, the second in Jan. 2012 at a Wilson Center panel discussion, Ephraim Sneh said unequivocally:  “The nukes are not the problem. The problem is the regime; they have got to go.”
On the first occasion, Sneh said, “The Iranian people are incapable of changing their government…We must cause Iran’s leaders to worry how they are going to feed their 70 million people.”  In other words, physician Ephraim Sneh recommended threatening 70 million Iranian civilians with starvation.  Madeleine Albright redux.

On the second occasion, Sneh said that not only must the “regime” be overthrown, Iran’s entire culture should be changed:  “When Iran is secular and democratic, then it can have anything it wants.”

wrt to first situation, Sneh is having his way.  In remarks at the Move Over AIPAC conference in DC in March 2012, Semnan Anderlini told the packed hall that “Iranian children are going without vitamins and cannot find adequate food; Iranian-Americans are fearful of speaking up or speaking out.  YOU speak for 73 million Iranians.”
Well done, Dr. Sneh.  Perhaps Albright can design a pin for you to adorn your chest:  “I starved more people than Madeleine Albright did.”

re Sneh’s second ‘goal,’ the secularization of Iran, 1. It ain’t gonna happen.  Some Iranians still chafe at the imposition of Islam in the 7th century, but most Iranians consider Islam an integral part of their culture.  In “Iran’s Epic and America’s Empire: A Handbook for a Generation in Limbo,” Mahmoud Omidsalar argues that it is a grievous mistake to think of the Shahnameh as Ferdowsi’s complaint at the imposition of Islam: Islam is as integral to the Iranian people as is the epic Shahnameh, which most Iranians can recite and which forms the cultural glue of Iranian society and culture.  Far from castigating Islam, as he wrote in 900 CE, Ferdowsi wove ancient Persian Zoroastrianism and contemporary Islam; as Cyrus had done 1400 years earlier, Ferdowsi melded the cultural legacies of Persians, Turks, Mongols, Arabs and many others who compose the Iranian culture.

Sneh’s drive to shatter that cultural cohesion is the most dangerous agenda of any that I can imagine.

It is also contrary to the norms established by Geneva Conventions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bibi’s plan to throw the United States under the bus

In sundry places over the past five years I have been writing that the people who comprise Israel have a long history of destroying the states where they have dwelt, where they have earlier and for extended periods been offered security and achieved prosperity and power, and that the United States should expect to experience a similar ‘Sampson option’ exit of Jewish, or at least zionists, from their nation.

Jews celebrate their ‘leave-taking’ from those erstwhile host-nations, and the celebrations demonstrate a pattern.  The major celebrations of the Jewish people are Passover, Purim, Rosh Hoshanah — the sounding of the horn, and Yom Kippur.  In Israel, Jews commemorate the holocaust, the most recent addition to the religious doctrine of the Jewish people.

Passover commemorates the exodus, an event during which the god of the Hebrew people slew the first-born child of the Egyptian people, after first causing sickness to ravage the Egyptians, disease destroy their crops and threaten famine, and after Hebrews stole treasure from the Egyptian people who had extended security, wealth, and privilege to the Hebrew people for about 480 years.

Purim commemorates the actions by which Esther and her uncle/cousin/guardian Mordechai inveigled to place Esther on the throne of the queen of Persia, in possession and control of half of the treasure of Persia;  murdered Haman, the prime minister of the Persian king, Ahasueras, and placed Mordechai in his stead; hanged the ten sons of Haman; and slew 75,000 Persians.

Rosh Hoshanah is the feast of the sounding of the horn.  To understand this holy day, I refer to the narrative of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, Joshua 6, 1-21:

6 Now Jericho was shut up inside and outside because of the people of Israel. None went out, and none came in. 2 And the Lord said to Joshua, “See, gI have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and mighty men of valor. 3 You shall march around the city, all the men of war going around the city once. Thus shall you do for six days. 4 Seven priests shall bear seven htrumpets of irams’ horns before the ark. On the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and jthe priests shall blow the trumpets. 5 And when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, when you hear the sound of the trumpet, then all the people shall shout with a great shout, and the wall of the city will fall down flat,1 and the people shall go up, everyone straight before him.”

Recall that in the Esther story, Esther, too, is signalled and encouraged by the sounding of the ram’s horn; recall also that a ram’s horn is a spiralled object; the sound is turned– spun — to herald the occasion.   Archaeologist and historian Eric Cline explains that Joshua’s assault on Jericho was a sophisticated military action, employing propaganda, communications, spying, and subversion of insiders (Rahab) to gain information and ingress.  Keep these concepts in mind as you read the Holy Bible’s narrative of the conquest of Canaan, and consider whether what is being discussed is religion or politics; and give some thought to whether what so many Americans think they revere as sacred writing is actually a battle plan for genocide.

Consider, also, that Thomas Jefferson was astute enough to assess Hebrew scriptures objectively and to conclude they were “morally deficient.”  Reviewing the New Testament, Jefferson extracted the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth from Hebrew influences inserted by various compilers of the NT; Jefferson saw in the Morals of Jesus “the most sublime moral the world has known.”

Back to the less-sublime military commander Joshua:

6 So Joshua the son of Nun called the priests and said to them, “Take up the ark of the covenant and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of the Lord.” 7 And he said to the people, “Go forward. March around the city and let kthe armed men pass on before the ark of the Lord.”

8 And just as Joshua had commanded the people, the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the Lord went forward, blowing the trumpets, with the ark of the covenant of the Lord following them. 9 The armed men were walking before the priests who were blowing the trumpets, and the lrear guard was walking after the ark, while the trumpets blew continually. 10 But Joshua commanded the people, “You shall not shout or make your voice heard, neither shall any word go out of your mouth, until the day I tell you to shout. Then you shall shout.” 11 So he caused the ark of the Lord to circle the city, going about it once. And they came into the camp and spent the night in the camp.

12 Then Joshua rose early in the morning, and mthe priests took up the ark of the Lord. 13 And the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of the Lord walked on, and they blew the trumpets continually. And the armed men were walking before them, and the rear guard was walking after the ark of the Lord, while the trumpets blew continually. 14 And the second day they marched around the city once, and returned into the camp. So they did for six days.

15 On the seventh day they rose early, at the dawn of day, and marched around the city in the same manner seven times. It was only on that day that they marched around the city seven times. 16 And at the seventh time, when the priests had blown the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, “Shout, for the Lord has given you the city. 17 And the city and all that is within it shall be ndevoted to the Lord for destruction.2 Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she ohid the messengers whom we sent. 18 But you, keep yourselves from the things devoted to destruction, lest when you have devoted them you take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel pa thing for destruction and qbring trouble upon it. 19 But all silver and gold, and every vessel of bronze and iron, are holy to the Lord; they shall go into the treasury of the Lord.” 20 So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted a great shout, and rthe wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they captured the city. 21 Then they sdevoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.

What does that have to do with things happening right now, today, in a world 3000 years post-Joshua?

Everything.

The pattern is the same.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2012/09/20/netanyahu-shilling-for-romney-in-florida-tv-ad/comment-page-1/#comment-298677

Comment on “Netanyahu Shilling for Romney in Florida,” Tikun Olam, Richard Silverstein, Sept. 20, 2012

Solon to Croesus commented:

I’ve just been viewing the 10-part series on WWI that is based on Hew Strachan’s history.

In Episode 4, “Jihad,” Max von Oppenheim is introduced. van Oppenheim, son of wealthy German Jews, was an archaeologist who represents himself as an expert on Islam; he was also a German agent.

Germany had long had relations with Ottoman empire, and the Kaiser considered a war-time alliance with Turks. von Moltke advised against it: Turks did not have a formidable army. von Oppenheim changed the kaiser’s mind: he advocated a holy war to bring down the British empire:

““When the Turks invade Egypt and India is set ablaze with the flames of revolt, only then will England crumble, for England is most vulnerable in her colonies.” –Max von Oppenheim

Kaiser came to see jihad as the way to foment revolution among the millions of Muslims under British rule.”

Constantinople became von Oppenheim’s playground; “the German embassy was rife with von Oppenheim’s spies.” …

Added details add added fascination at the plots and counterplots — i.e. Envir Pasha, Ottoman defense minister, was more than happy to cooperate with von Oppenheim’s schemes and send his men to fight for Germany, but he had his own agenda: he hoped to reunite the Ottoman empire, “his beloved Turks,” under the leadership of Young Turks.

But the thought that occurred to me was that Bibi is intent on inflaming the “colonial empire” of the United States, attacking the US at its most vulnerable points, with the intention of destroying the US empire in the Middle East and removing the US presence that holds Israel in check.

Bibi may be a sociopath, but his actions are not without a definite logic. He is aware of the harm he is doing to the US, to Jews in the US, and to the position of the United States in the ME. His constant goading re Iran, and sponsorship of Islamophobia is intended to inflame anti-US passions, with the same hoped-for outcome as that of von Oppenheim: to cause the US colonial empire to crumble.

Bibi has declared war on the United States. He’s using our own troops, citizens, and treasure to prosecute that war.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“There is a war — Between Bigotry and Beauty… Side with Beauty.”

This video of spoken word artist Mark Gonzales is in response to the hateful and racist advertisements purchased by Pamela Geller and her organization the American Freedom Defense Initiative on San Francisco city buses as well as across the country in the month of August. While hate profiteers do have the right to freedom of speech, we also use our right to speak out against the historical and ongoing targeting of communities of color. The use of the word “savage” in Geller’s bus ads and elsewhere throughout US history, as is seen in the targeting of indigenous people and communities of color, is offensive to all of us. It desecrates the memories of those whose lives and land were taken as a result of imperialism and conquest. We stand against hate, then and now, and see these attacks as targeting all of our communities.  Produced by:
http://www.UpheavalProductions.com

For more on Mark Gonzales:
http://www.wagebeauty.com/

Mark Gonzales reflects the power and moral force of Rafeef Ziadah, “We Teach Life, Sir.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Zionist pathology- Spotlight must always be on Jews

Mondoweiss posts Lowenstein article on Anne Frank = Rachel Corrie

Best comment:

Walidsays:

“Unlike Anne Frank, whose life has been immortalized by the circumstances of her death…” (J. Loewenstein)

It was much more a question of Hollywood PR, countless plays, movies, TV dramas and documentaries that immortalized Anne Frank than the circumstances of her death. She was but one person out of 6 million and her death from typhus was less dramatic than what most concentration camp Jews experienced.

Rachel Corrie is in a completely different category. She died defending the rights of oppressed people. She was a heroine in the true sense of the word without any need of of being propped up by any PR campaign or the conjuring up of any imaginary encounter between her and Anne Frank discussing diaries.

Jennifer Loewenstein is a great writer; what she wrote about Rachel Corrie was good enough to stand alone. The added Anne Frank theatrics diluted the message.

I would argue with Walid re this point:

[Anne Frank] was but one person out of 6 million and her death from typhus was less dramatic than what most concentration camp Jews experienced.

Maybe not.  If Jews had a more dramatic death to highlight, they would have done so.  Anne Frank’s death from typhus was just one of how, perhaps 250,000 Jews — and not more — died in concentration camps. Her life, death and post-mortem celebrity status were a lot less excruciating, intentional, and anonymous than what 600,000 incinerated Germans suffered from Allied firebombing during the war, and a lot more comfortable than what approximately 3 million German civilians suffered AFTER the war.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Feuerbach on egoism, Abarbanel on Narcissism, and Bibi

The Politics of Narcissism – Avigail Abarbanel

“I have always believed that my profession has a lot to offer to the understanding of politics. One important contribution we can make is to highlight the relationship between narcissism, in particular Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NDP), and politics.A person has to have only five of the following DSM-IV criteria to be diagnosed with NPD. He or she: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance; (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; (3) believes that he or she is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high status people (or institutions); (4) requires excessive admiration; (5) has a sense of entitlement i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations; (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recongise or identify with the feelings and needs of others; (8) is often envious of otherso r believes that others are envious of him or her; (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM IV. American Psychiatric Association. P.661)

People with NPD are everywhere but can be found in particular in areas where there are visible signs of success, status and power, and where admiration can be obtained relatively easily for example: high level sports, entertainment, all branches of academia, medicine, military and law enforcement, high level corporate and public service jobs and in politics.

The emotional maturity of people with NPD is that of a 3-5 year old child. They generate chaos, confusion and fear around them. They are divisive, and are incredibly harmful (emotionally and otherwise) to anyone under their influence. The closer you are to them, the worse it is.

I have worked with many clients over the years who are children of narcissists. It’s a terrible hidden injury to have to live with. As parents, narcissists are not necessarily violent or abusive in any obvious sense. In fact they are more likely to be seen as ‘perfect’ devoted parents. They would often spend a lot of time with their chosen children pushing them to succeed in an area that they happen to value and so that they can put them on display. They might get involved in the child’s activity in some capacity, to be seen as selfless and helpful and to be admired by others as devoted parents. Ask the child of a narcissist and he or she would tell you that ‘Dad got involved but he did it for himself. It was never about me’.

I said ‘chosen children’ because if narcissists have two or more children, they will often divide them into two groups: the successful versus the unsuccessful, the bright and ‘not so bright’, those who could do well and those who ‘wouldn’t amount to anything’. Many children of narcissists live a miserable life either as sad underachievers or as successful perfectionists who never feel they are good enough. Many end up killing themselves, or living with depression or substance abuse, and no one, least of all them, understands why. When they come to therapy they don’t feel that they have a right to have problems, because their family was not only ‘normal’ but even ‘perfect’. And this is important because image is everything for narcissists, and children (and partners) learn to collude early on with the task of making the family and the narcissistic parent look good. The French film Look at Me shows a good example of a successful author who has NPD and the devastating effect he has on his daughter.

Narcissists vary in the degree of success they achieve. It depends a lot on their particular talents, their time in history, social class and other circumstances. For example, many female narcissists could not have become successful at anything much two hundred years ago, when women’s status in society was so low. Unsuccessful narcissists often spend their entire lives feeling bitter and disappointed about a world that they believe has failed to recognise their ‘specialness’, their beauty or genius. They can get quite depressed and self-tormented, feeling deprived of what they need the most, and believe they deserve: recognition and admiration. Narcissists in general tend to have a victim mentality and an unhealthy sense of entitlement. They are incapable of self-awareness and do not own up or take responsibility for their actions. Everything is always someone else’s fault.

Narcissists, particularly the successful ones, can be extremely well presented. People who are not too close to them tend to admire them but those who are unfortunate enough to live with them or work closely with them know better.

Less successful narcissists are attracted to more successful ones so that they can bask in their reflected glory. Behind the unrestrained admiration of celebrity in all varieites lies narcissism. We even have parasitical industries that feed on it and promote it, such as glossy magazines (complete with paparazzi), and certain television shows whose entire focus is on creating overnight celebrities and feeding them to an audience of narcissists.

The damage narcissists do in the work environment is aptly described by the gifted Australian psychologist John Clarke in his book Working with Monsters. NPD fits well with Clarke’s description of the ‘workplace psychopath’.

But what happens when narcissists run entire countries? What happens when their decisions and actions affect millions of people, especially considering their lack of capacity for empathy or responsibility? Imagine what would happen if you gave a small child all the armies and money they want and enough power to do whatever they want with them, and you get the idea.

Politics, as it has been practiced throughout human history, is a magnet for narcissists because it offers so many advantages: power, money, privilege of all kinds, and most of all status and admiration. Narcissistic dictators are pretty obvious but even in Western democracies, politics includes too many elements, privileges and benefits that are all too attractive to narcissists.

If like me you are infuriated, frustrated and outright worried about policies that are short-sighted, that ignore facts and evidence (e.g. Howard’s response to climate change); policies that promote divisiveness over unity and cooperation, suspicion and mistrust over compassion, and destructiveness over healing and dialogue, look for the narcissist. If you are shocked and disgusted by white collar crime or corruption, look for the narcissist. If you are puzzled by why politics has been practiced with such cynicism and lack of compassion, with such shallowness, dishonesty and nastiness, look for the narcissists.

Big egos, resistance to change, ruthlessness and dishonesty are not just the foibles of high achievers, neither are they the admirable qualities of ‘go getters’. They are the symptom of a serious pathology. It is important for the public to be able to understand and name what it sees rather than feel dismayed and puzzled by it.

Narcissistic leaders can give a whole society a narcissistic ‘flavour’ by promoting and advancing those who are like them. The most obvious signs of a narcissistic society are a strong focus on ‘grandness’, appearances and spectacles, disregard for rules and laws, and an empty confusing rhetoric at the expense of real substance. A narcissistic government would spend a lot of money and effort publicising its achievements, real or imaginary. Under narcissistic rulers reality begins to mix with fiction and real data about what is going on are covered up.

If we want to live in a compassionate, benevolent and rational society, based on dialogue and inclusiveness rather than fear and divisiveness, and if we want to have a long-term view of problem-solving we must ensure that we never again elect narcissistic leaders. A good way to prevent narcissists from being attracted to politics in the first place, is to reform the way politics is done. A humbler political system that only offers to politicians what they really need in order to do their job, that is caring, transparent and truly accountable and that is run in the true spirit of service to the people, is unlikely to attract narcissists because they will not find in it the commodities they so covet.

What if the creed, the mental architecture, the mythos of an entire people is one of egoism?  Feuerbach argues that Hebrew scriptures worship the ego:

Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity: PART I, The True or Anthropological Essence of Religion


Chapter XI. The Significance of the Creation in Judaism


THE doctrine of the Creation sprang out of Judaism; indeed, it is the characteristic, the fundamental doctrine of the Jewish religion. The principle which lies at its foundation is, however, not so much the principle of subjectivity as of egoism. The doctrine of the Creation in its characteristic significance arises only on that stand-point where man in practice makes Nature merely the servant of his will and needs, and hence in thought also degrades it to a mere machine, a product of the will. Now its existence is intelligible to him, since he explains and interprets it out of himself, in accordance with his own feelings and notions. The question, Whence is Nature or the world? presupposes wonder that it exists, or the question, Why does it exist? But this wonder, this question, arises only where man has separated himself from Nature and made it a mere object of will. The author of the Book of Wisdom says truly of the heathens, that, “for admiration of the beauty of the world they did not raise themselves to the idea of the Creator.” To him who feels that Nature is lovely, it appears an end in itself, it has the around of its existence in itself in him the question, Why does it exist? does not arise. Nature and God are identified in his consciousness, his perception, of the world. Nature, as it impresses his senses, has indeed had an origin, has been produced, but not created in the religious sense, is not an arbitrary product. And by this origin he implies nothing evil; originating involves for him nothing impure, un-divine; he conceives his gods themselves as having had an origin. The generative force is to him the primal force: he posits, therefore, as the ground of Nature, a force of Nature, – a real, present, visibly active force, as the ground of reality. Thus does man think where his relation to the world is “thetic or theoretic (for the theoretic view was originally the aesthetic view, the prima philosophia), where the idea of the world is to him the idea of the cosmos. of majesty, of deity itself. Only where such a theory was the fundamental principle could there be conceived and expressed such a thought as that of Anaxagoras: – Man is born to behold the world. [In Diogenes (L. 1. ii. c. iii. § 6), it is literally, “for the contemplation of the sun, the moon and the heavens.” Similar ideas were held by other philosophers. Thus the Stoics also said: – “Ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplandum et imitandum.” – Cic. (de Nat.).]

The standpoint of theory is the standpoint of harmony with the world. The subjective activity, that in which man contents himself, allows himself free play, is here the sensuous imagination alone. Satisfied with this, he lets Nature subsist in peace, and constructs his castles in the air, his poetical cosmogonies, only out of natural materials. When, on the contrary, man places himself only on the practical standpoint and looks at the world from thence, making the practical standpoint the theoretical one also, he is in disunion with Nature; he makes Nature the abject vassal of his selfish interest, of his practical egoism. The theoretic expression of this egoistical, practical view, according to which Nature is in itself nothing,, is this: Nature or the world is made, created, the product of a command.

God said, Let the world be, and straightway the world presented itself at his bidding.

Utilism is the essential theory of Judaism. The belief in a special Divine Providence is the characteristic belief of Judaism; belief in Providence is belief in miracle; but belief in miracle exists where Nature is regarded only as an object of arbitrariness, of egoism, which uses Nature only as an instrument of its own will and pleasure. Water divides or rolls itself together like a firm mass, dust is changed into lice, a staff into a serpent, rivers into blood, a rock into a fountain; in the same place it is both light and dark at once, the sun now stands still, now goes backward. And all these contradictions of Nature happen for the welfare of Israel, purely at the command of Jehovah, who troubles himself about nothing but Israel, who is nothing but the personified selfishness of the Israelitish people, to the exclusion of all other nations, – absolute intolerance, the secret essence of monotheism.

The Greeks looked at Nature with the theoretic sense; they heard heavenly music in the harmonious course of the stars; they saw Nature rise from the foam of the all-producing ocean as Venus Anadyomene. The lsraelites, on the contrary, opened to Nature only the gastric sense; their taste for Nature lay only in the palate; their consciousness of God in eating manna. The Greek addicted himself to polite studies, to the fine arts, to philosophy; the Israelite did not rise above the alimentary view of theology. “At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God.” And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then shall the Lord be my God.” Eating is the most solemn act or the initiation of the Jewish religion. In eating, the Israelite celebrates and renews the act of creation; in eating man declares Nature to be an insignificant object. When the seventy elders ascended the mountain with Moses, “they saw God; and when they had seen God, they ate and drank.” Thus with them what the sight of the Supreme Being, heightened was the appetite for food.

The Jews have maintained their peculiarity to this day. Their principle, their God, is the most practical principle in the world, – namely, egoism; and moreover egoism in the form of religion. Egoism is the God who will not let his servants come to shame. Egoism is essentially monotheistic, for it has only one, only self, as its end. Egoism strengthens cohesion, concentrates man on himself, gives him a consistent principle of life; but it makes him theoretically narrow, because indifferent to all which does not relate to the wellbeing of self. Hence science, like art, arises only out of polytheism, for polytheism is the frank, open, unenvying sense of all that is beautiful and good without distinction, the sense of the world, of the universe.

The Greeks looked abroad into the wide world that they might extend their sphere of vision; the Jews to this day pray with their faces turned towards Jerusalem. In the Israelites, monotheistic egoism excluded the free theoretic tendency. Solomon, it is true, surpassed “all the children of the East” in understanding and wisdom, and spoke (treated, agebat) moreover “of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall,” and also of “beasts and of fowl, and of creeping things and of fishes” (i Kings iv. 30, 34). But it must be added that Solomon did not serve Jehovah with his whole heart; he did homage to strange cods and strange women; and thus lie had the polytheistic sentiment and taste. The polytheistic sentiment, I repeat, is the foundation of science and art.

The significance which Nature in general had for the Hebrews is one with their idea of its origin. The mode in which the genesis of a thing is explained is the candid expression of opinion, of sentiment respecting it. If it be thought meanly of, so also is its origin. Men used to suppose that insects, vermin, sprang from carrion and other rubbish. It was not because they derived vermin from so uninviting a source that they thought contemptuously of them, but, on the contrary, because they thought thus, because the nature of vermin appeared to them so vile, they imagined an origin corresponding to this nature, a vile origin.

To the Jews Nature was a mere means towards achieving the end of egoism, a mere object of will.

But the ideal, the idol of the egoistic will is that Will which has unlimited command, which requires no means in order to attain its end, to realise its object, which immediately by itself, i.e., by pure will, calls into existence whatever it pleases. It pains the egoist that the satisfaction of his wishes and need is only to be attained immediately, that for him there is a chasm between the Wish and its realisation, between the object in the imagination and the object in reality. Hence, in order to relieve this pain, to make himself free from the limits of reality, he supposes as the true, the highest being,, One who brings forth an object by the mere I will. For this reason, Nature, the world, was to the Hebrews the product of a dictatorial word, of a categorical imperative, of a manic flat.

To that which has no essential existence for me in theory I assign no theoretic, no positive ground. By referring it to Will I only enforce its theoretic nullity. What we despise we do not honour with a glance: that which is observed has importance: contemplation is respect. Whatever is looked at fetters by secret forces of attraction, overpowers by the spell which it exercises upon the eye, the criminal arrogance of that Will which seeks only to subject all things to itself. Whatever makes an impression on the theoretic sense, on the reason, withdraws itself from the dominion of the egoistic Will: it reacts, it presents resistance. That which devastating egoism devotes to death, benignant theory restores to life.

The much-belied doctrine of the heathen philosophers concerning, the eternity of matter, or the world, thus implies nothing more than that Nature was to them a theoretic reality. [It is well known, however, that their opinions on this point were various. (See e.g. Aristoteles de Coelo, 1. i. c. 10.) But their difference is a subordinate one, since the creative agency itself is with them a more or less cosmical being.] The heathens were idolaters, that is, they contemplated Nature; they did nothing, else than what the profoundly Christian nations do at this day when they make Nature an object of their admiration, of their indefatigable investigation. “But the heathens actually worshipped natural objects.” Certainly; for worship is only the childish, the religious form of contemplation. Contemplation and worship are not essentially distinguished. That which I contemplate I humble myself before, I consecrate to it my noblest possession, my heart, my intelligence, as an offering. The natural philosopher also falls on his knees before Nature when, at the risk of his life, he snatches from some precipice a lichen, an insect, or a stone, to glorify it in the light of contemplation, and give it an eternal existence in the memory of scientific humanity. The study of Nature is the worship of Nature – idolatry in the sense of the Israelitish and Christian God; and idolatry is simply man’s primitive contemplation of Nature; for religion is nothing else than man’s primitive, and therefore childish, popular, but prejudiced, unemancipated consciousness of himself and of Nature. The Hebrews, on the other hand, raised themselves from the worship of idols to the worship of God, from the creature to the Creator; i.e., they raised themselves from the theoretic view of Nature, which fascinated the idolaters, to the purely practical view which subjects Nature only to the ends of egoism. “And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord thy God bath divided unto (i.e., bestowed upon, largitus est) all nations under the whole heaven.” Thus the creation out of nothing, i.e., the creation as a purely imperious act, had its origin only in the unfathomable depth of Hebrew egoism.

On this ground, also, the creation out of nothing is no object of philosophy; – at least in any other way than it is so here – for it cuts away the root of all true speculation, presents no grappling-point to thought, to theory; theoretically considered, it is a baseless air-built doctrine, which originated solely in the need to give a warrant to utilism, to egoism, which contains and expresses nothing bait the command to make Nature – not an object Of thought, of contemplation, but – an object of utilisation. The more empty it is, however, for natural philosophy, the more profound is its “speculative” significance; for just because it has no theoretic fulcrum, it allows to the speculatist infinite room for the play of arbitrary, Groundless interpretation.

It is in the history of dogma and speculation as in the history of states. World-old usages, laws, and institutions continue to drag out their existence long after they have lost their true meaning. What lies once existed will not be denied the right to exist for ever; what was once good, claims to be good for all times. At this period of superannuation come the interpreters, the speculatists, and talk of the profound sense, because they no longer know the true one.

[But of course they only do this in the case of the “absolute religion” for with regard to other religions they hold up the ideas and customs which are foreign to us, and of which we do riot know the original meaning and purpose, as senseless and ludicrous. And yet, in fact, to worship tile urine of cows, which the Parsecs and Hindus drink that they may obtain forgiveness of sins, is not more ludicrous than to worship the comb or a shred of the garment of the Mother of God.]

Thus religious speculation deals with the dogmas torn from the connection in which alone they have any true meaning; instead of tracing them back critically to their true origin, it makes the secondary primitive, and the primitive secondary. To it God is the first, man the second. Thus it inverts the natural order of things. In reality, the first is man, the second the nature of man made objective, namely, God. Only in later times, in which religion is already become flesh and blood, can it be said – As God is, so is man; although, indeed, this proposition never amounts to anything more than tautology. But in the origin of religion it is otherwise; and it is only in the origin of a thing that we can discern its true nature. Man first unconsciously and involuntarily creates God in his own image, and after this God consciously and voluntarily creates man in his own image. This is especially confirmed by the development of the Israelitish religion. Hence the position of theological one-sidedness, that the revelation of God holds an even pace with the development of the human race. Naturally; for the revelation of God is nothing else than the revelation, the self-unfolding of human nature. The supra-naturalistic egoism of the Jews did not proceed from the Creator, but conversely, the latter from the former; in the creation the Israelite justified his egoism at the bar of his reason.

It is true, and it may be readily understood on simply practical grounds, that even the Israelite could not, as a man, withdraw himself from the theoretic contemplation and admiration of Nature. But in celebrating the power and greatness of Nature, he celebrates only the power and greatness of Jehovah. And the power of Jehovah has exhibited itself with the most glory in the miracles which it has wrought in favour of Israel. Hence, in the celebration of this power, the Israelite has always reference ultimately to himself; he extols the Greatness of Nature only for the same reason that the conqueror magnifies the strength of his opponent, in order thereby to heighten his own self-complacency, to make his own fame more illustrious. Great and mighty is Nature, which Jehovah has created, but yet mightier, yet greater, is Israel’s self-estimation. For his sake the sun stands still; for his sake, according to Pluto, the earth quaked at the delivery of the law; in short, for his sake all Nature alters its course. “For the whole creature in his proper kind was fashioned again anew, serving the peculiar commandments that were given unto them, that thy children might be kept without hurt.” According to Philo, God gave Moses power over the whole of Nature; all the elements obeyed him as the Lord of Nature. Israel’s requirement is the omnipotent law of the world, Israel’s need the fate of the universe. Jehovah is Israel’s consciousness of the sacredness and necessity of his own existence, – necessity before which the existence of Nature, the existence of other nations, vanishes into nothing; Jehovah is the salus populi, the salvation of Israel, to which everything, that stands in its way must be sacrificed; Jehovah is exclusive, monarchical arrogance, the annihilating flash of anger in the vindictive glance of destroying Israel; in a word, Jehovah is the ego of Israel, which regards itself as the end and aim, the Lord of Nature. Thus, in the power of Nature the Israelite celebrates the power of Jehovah, and in the power of Jehovah the power of his own self-consciousness. “Blessed be God! God is our help, God is our salvation.” – “Jehovah is my strength.” – “God himself hearkened to the word of Joshua, for Jehovah himself fought for Israel.” – “Jehovah is a God of war.

If, in the course of time, the idea of Jehovah expanded itself in individual minds, and his love was extended, as by the writer of the Book of Jonah, to man in general, this does not belong to the essential character of the Israelitish religion. {{shakey ground here}} The God of the fathers, to whom the most precious recollections are attached, the ancient historical God, remains always the foundation of a religion.

[We may here observe, that certainly the admiration of the power and glory of God in general, and so of Jehovah, as manifested in Nature, is in fact, though not in the consciousness of the Israelite, only admiration of the power and glory of Nature. (See, on this subject, P. Bayle, Ein Beitrag, &., pp. 25-29.) But to prove this formally lies out of our plan, since we here confine ourselves to Christianity, i.e., the adoration of God in man (Deum colimus per Christum. Tertullian, Apolog. C. 21). Nevertheless, the principle of this proof is stated in the present work.]

——————–

What huge imago made A psychopathic god

Hitler was not the Psychopathic god; Hitler and the German people who followed Grundmann sought to prise the Jesus of the German people out of the Hebrew scriptural matrix.  Susannah Heschel and _____ who was ambitious & sought a name for himself, pushed back against that humbling of the ego.

Jane Eisner’s speech to J Street displays several characteristics of the narcissist. In fact, the holocaust narrative is the religion of narcissism.  Can Abarbanel take that leap?

Was Benzion Netanyahu narcissistic? In “Origins of the Inquisition,” he define anti-semitism; does that definition boil down to the description of any person who resists the grandiose claims of the narcissist?

Benjamin Netanyahu was raised by a narcissist and was the not-chosen son of that narcissist, moreover, he has never performed an act of supreme narcissism as has his brother, thus, he will forever be, internally, a coward.  That makes him trebly troubled and dangerous.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment