THE SAGES: DENNIS FISCHMAN
Today, I’d like to set forth an academic polemicist, Dennis Fischman, rather then the usual sage, to comment upon and unfold the relationship between Karl Marx, Greek philosophers, and Jewish thinkers. I use the word “Jew” advisedly, as it is distinct from either Hebrew or Israelite. The claimed linkage, intellectually, between Hebrews and Jews is suspect, at best. Further, there is near certainty that important elements within the various Greek “city-states” were of Israelite origin. Hence, the assertion of a fundamental distinction between the Greek way of thinking and the Hebrew way of thinking seems whimsical and tendentious. However, there may well be a distinction between Greek and Hebrew thinking and Jewish thinking.
It is fair to assert that there are people who wish to see “red” in their world, and in their passion and obsession they make red that which is not red. Witnesses may “see” things quite differently. Ethno-centric people may see in their people more than is warranted by observable evidence. What else is there by which to judge? Intuition? Be that as it may, assertions are made which may be influential, and it is well to touch upon them. Those who have been “touched” in some important way may wish to learn more from the source. Consider:
“The tradition within which theorists generally read the writings of Marx is called ‘modern political thought.’…Because of its Christian roots, much of modern political thought has nurtured itself on a distinctive understanding of reality — what philosophers generally call an ontology. This ontology rests on the attempt to combine Jewish thinking with Greek thinking which has characterized much of Christian theology.
“…What if Jewish and Greek thinking were radically and irreconcilably different, and to synthesize them would be to do violence to both?…If modern political thought does indeed move within the ‘horizon of peace’ of which Derrida speaks, if we are trained to expect conflicting views to melt into one underlying truth or never to meet at all, then we should expect to find it hard to grasp the real, stubborn difference between the two. Jewish and Greek modes of thought are not ‘entirely discrete functions that can be neatly peeled apart for inspection — apparently, like the different colored strands of electrical wiring.’…
“How, then, can we go about inquiring into the affinities between Marx’s ontology and traditional Jewish thought, if comparing them directly is only a first step? I propose we use the special hermeneutic style characterized earlier as a non-’Marxist’ reading of Marx: to seek out gaps, discrepancies, rough spots, incipient contradictions in Marx’s ontology, and to read through and beyond them to understand what that thought now means….
“While its exact nature has been the subject of lively dispute, the contrast between ‘Greek’ and ‘Hebrew’ modes of thought has flourished in the West for centuries….[Thorleif] Boman portrays Hebrew and Greek thought as diametrically opposed views of reality. A Greek would find Hebrew thinking strange, and a Hebrew thinker would find Greek thought foreign. The difference between the two is systematic: ‘It does not lie in any [one] word or in a circumscribed viewpoint; yet it extends throughout the whole to every detail.’ The opposition between Hebrew and Greek applies not only to thought, but also to feeling and judgment, too….
“Because it organizes reality ‘from the standpoint of an experiencing person,’ Hebrew thought identifies time with the events it contains, while Greek thinking, in order to come to grips with time at all, must express it in terms of space….What matters for this conceptualization is not what kind of time one passes but simply how much. Amounts of time, in turn, come to be gauged according to the language of distance, by how far one ‘point in time’ lies from another.
“In contrast to this formal and quantitative approach to time, Boman explains, ‘the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.’ Events mark time’s passage, engraving specific moments in memory. Of course, Hebrew thinkers can still tell noon from midnight….
“Because Hebrew thought perceives different occasions as internally related rather than as mere ‘points in time,’ Boman believes it immensely advances ‘the capacity for experiencing contemporaneity.’ Historian Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi has observed that up until the modern era, Jews hardly relied at all on the writing of history to preserve group memories. Instead, in evocative ceremonies like the Passover Seder, ‘both the language and the gesture are designed to spur, not so much a leap of memory as a fusion of past and present. Memory here is no longer recollection, which still preserves a sense of distance, but reactualization.’
“What makes different historical moments contemporaneous to the Hebraic thinker is their import for the fulfillment of divine commands….
“For the Greeks, who want to know how things really are, there is a huge difference between form and content, and form – the more general, stable category – is reality at its highest. Hebrews, according to Boman, refuse to separate form from content, spirit from matter….
“In order to raise the question of how ‘Hebrew thought’ enters into the thought processes of an ambivalent Jew like Karl Marx, then, it seems we must open up the typology in three directions. We will take ‘Hebrew’ down into the material world, where it becomes ‘Jewish.’ We will travel with ‘thought’ through time and watch it come out ‘tradition.’ Finally, ‘textuality’ will emerge from between the lines – those auxiliary lines that Boman forgot to erase – to take on weight and substance and a specifically Jewish coloration….
“For the religious Jew, the Torah summarizes the history of the Jewish tradition: because every generation studies it, the text and its readings to a considerable degree constitute the Jewish experience….The Torah relies on dialogue rather than description to characterize the actors in its dramas.
“But then, what is a person in the world of the biblical story? Boman had already remarked: ‘The person is an active being who is perpetually engaged in becoming and yet remains identical with himself. In dialogical language, we might rephrase it: people become who they are in the process of relating to others, who are also changing and growing, over a period of time.
“If God, the creator and origin of meaning in the universe, is conceived in the Torah as a person, and therefore as an essentially relational self who changes as we, God’s partners, do – if God, too, is a ‘center of surprise’ – then relating to God and participating in the divine purpose must be radically unlike gaining knowledge of the cosmos and contributing to the achievement of a telos….
“As compared to Greek myth (in which mortals anf gods alike await the designs of Fate), Greek philosophy (in which the universe allows for human excellence but neither promotes nor needs it), and those elements of Christianity that stress predestination, original sin, and undeserved divine grace, the Jewish themes of dialogue and partnership in creation mean that people and their actions matter. That sense of the cosmic importance of human action is a thread that leads us straight into the Marxian labyrinth.”
[Dennis Fischman, Political Discourse In Exile: Karl Marx and the Jewish Question, excerpted from chapter two]
In considering the arguments involved here on all sides the reader would be well advised to recall that language specialists have affirmed that the English language is more closely related to ancient Hebrew than any other. Also, the Celtic languages of Wales and Ireland are so closely related that Welsh- and Erse-speaking school children can read and understand Hebrew text – with no formal training in it. The Hebrew language moved westward. It was carried by Hebrews. It follows that the thinking processes that attended the natural command of this language would have followed the carriers thereof, even as they settled in the “Isles of the West.”
Downnlaced, 2009
THE SAGES: ELIE WIESEL
Winning a Nobel Prize not so many years ago was widely perceived as a great honor. Whether for science, for literature, for economics or for peace, the recipients were assured their rewards would mark them as special – a sort of “national treasure” of the world. However, about forty years ago discerning people began to see unworthiness being praised by the bestowal of the Nobel Prize. Increasingly, there was clear evidence of political pay-offs by means of the Nobel Prize. It carries a nice piece of tax-free money. It still at that time was prestigious to win such an award, and the Prize could open additional doors for favorable position and monetary grants. Then one warlike United States president after another began to get the Prize for Peace!? When presidents didn’t win, then U.S. Secretaries of State, U.S. foreign affairs advisers, or their correlatives in European and Asian nations gladly accepted the reward. Some even refused the Award for issues of principle, even when they had none. Cronyism, as it were, was suspected as well, as an incredibly high percentage of those selected were Jews.
Futhermore, the fact that the judges were mostly Norwegians made perceptive individuals in the world community wonder if this was a nation of obtuse bipeds or some “owned” tribe of Stepin Fetchits.
One of the “honored” recipients of the Nobel Prize was Elie Wiesel. It is altogether instructive to feature him, as it touches on the major issues dogging this once esteemed award. One merely has to consider his words to immediately perceive his personal merit, as well as any merit to be found among the judges. Consider:
“Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate – healthy, virilr hate – for what the German personifies and what persists in the German.”
[Elie Wiesel, LEGENDS OF OUR TIME (1968), p. 142, cited by Ted R. Weiland, GOD'S COVENANT PEOPLE, p. 139]
This is hardly the first instance where a celebrated Jew used the word “hate” as if an approved tool for world “improvement.” There is reason to be wary in regard to this people. They hate too much; such people are dangerous.
Downnlaced, 2009
EDWARD V, KING OF ENGLAND
Site of Romanov massacre
When one considers the demise of the last Romanov Tzardom in Russia, it is only natural to consider their family. What happened to them? Where are they now? What happened to the vast fortune of Tzar Nicholas upon his untimely death?
We do know that the Tzar Nicholas, Tzarina Alexandra, their children, some kinfolks, and some servants were all massacred at Ekaterinberg Palace by Jewish hoodlums, who replaced the Russian Communist guards specifically for this purpose. There were rumors that Anastazia had survived. There are plenty of rumors involving this historical marker.
One of the relatives of the murdered Romanov Tzar, which many don’t think about – or even know, was Edward V, King of England and Emperor of India. He was a first cousin of Tzar Nicholas II. Given the convention of royals intermarrying in Europe, Edward is not likely to be the only close kin of the Russian Tzar. Yet, not one of them apparently acted to save their blood-relative, Nicholas II, Romanov Tzar of All Russia. Is there a clue in history that might enlighten interested students of history?
Actually, diligent researchers, including Mr. Eustace Mullins, have discovered interesting material, which might shine some light on the matter. Our focus will be on Edward V, King of England. Consider:
“…King Edward V of England…had a Privy Council who refused to let him make an appeal to the Bolsheviks to spare the Czar. This Privy Council in 1919 was composed only of Jews. It was headed by Lord Rothschild and consisted of Sir Edwin Montagu, Sir Edgar Speyer, a Jewish banker born in Frankfurt, Germany, and inexplicably raised to the highest council in England, Sir Matthew Nathan, Sir Alfred Moritz Mond, head of Imperial Chemicals Ltd., Sir Harry Samuel, owner of Shell Oil, Sir Ernest Cassel, and Earl Reading, Rufus Isaacs. The King’s fortune was entirely in the hands of these Jewish bankers. He dared not open his mouth, even to save his blood relatives….” [Eustace Mullins, MULLINS' NEW HISTORY OF THE JEWS, pages 105-106]
British royalty appears to have evolved beyond the bromide: “Blood is thicker than water.” They now curtsey before “Money is thicker than blood.” No wonder all correctly thinking people despise the Hanovers. Is it any wonder that they are dogs to bankers?
Downnlaced, 2009
THE SAGES: RABBI EMANUEL RABINOVICH
There are a rather sizable number of curious volumes, letters, protocols, and speeches which have been unearthed, so to speak. They are quite often of interests, as they reveal thoughts, passions, plans of action, and something of the motivation behind it all. Sometimes they are schemes to seize power. In such circumstances cautious, clandestine doings are a necessity, less the plot is discovered and the schemers live long enough to see their heads separated from their bodies. Danger has never been an obstacle to many such plots.
Denial is always to be expected from those discovered involved in a diabolic plot. Who wants to lose his head? On a few occasions the schemers want to be discovered so as execute a well-publicized drama meant to engender favor in the eyes of viewers. These plotters believe in their concept – their vision – and actually believe that by sacrificing themselves, if it comes to that, they will eventually create the conditions whereby their vision will eventually come into existence.
Our featured Sage is not one who advocates the sacrifice of his own life, nor many of his compatriots’ lives either, but he does understand that very risky businesses often succeed only after a modest level of losses. He even mentions this in the speech which we will render below. It is a transcript of Rabbi Rabinovich’s speech delivered before the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary, January 12, 1952. It is said to be documented and unchallenged. In view of the people involved, that itself would be miracle. Consider:
“Greetings, my children! You have been called here to recapitulate the principal steps of our new program. As you know, we had hoped to have twenty years between wars to consolidate the great gains which we made from World War II, but our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to us, and we must now work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War III within five years.
“The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase our efforts and our caution tenfold. I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a King, and every gentile a slave!” (Applause from the gathering.)
“You may remember the success of our propaganda campaign during the 1930s, which aroused anti-American passions in Germany, at the same time we were arousing anti-German passions in America, a campaign which culminated in the Second World War. A similar propaganda campaign is now being waged intensively throughout the world. A war fever is being worked up in Russia by an incessant anti-American barrage, while a nationwide anti-Communist scare is sweeping America. This campaign is forcing all of the smaller nations to choose between the partnership of Russia or an alliance with the United States.
“Our most pressing problem at the moment is to inflame the lagging militaristic spirit of the Americans. The failure of the Universal Military Training Act was a great setback to our plans, but we are assured that a suitable measure will be rushed through Congress immediately after the 1952 elections. The Russian as well as the Asiatic peoples, are well under control, and offer no objections to war, but we must wait to secure the Americans. This we hope to do with the issue of anti-Semitism, which worked so well in uniting the Americans against Germany.
“We are counting heavily on reports of anti-Semitic outrages in Russia to whip up indignation in the United States, and produce a front of solidarity against the Soviet power. Simultaneously, to demonstrate to Americans the reality of anti-Semitism, we will advance through new sources large sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their effectiveness, and we shall stage anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their largest cities. This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sectors in America, which can then be silenced, and of welding the United States into a devoted anti-Russian unit.
“Within five years, this program will achieve its objective, the Third World War, which will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israel, of course, will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted, we will arbitrate, sending our Control Commissions into all of the wrecked countries. This war will end for all time our struggle against the gentiles. We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out interracial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites. The white women must cohabit with members of the dark races, and the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white will be the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We will embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the earth. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples.
(Question from gathering): “Rabbi Rabinovich, what about the various religions after the Third World War?”
(Rabinovich): “There will be no more religions. Not only would the existence of a priest class remain a constant danger to our rule, but belief in an afterlife would give spiritual strength to irreconcilable elements in many countries, and enable them to resist us. We will, however, retain the rituals and customs of Judaism as the mark of our hereditary ruling caste, strengthening our racial laws so that no Jew will be allowed to marry outside of our race, nor will any stranger be accepted by us.
“We may have to repeat the grim days of World War II when we were forced to let the Hitlerite bandits sacrifice some of our people, in order that we may have adequate documentation and witnesses to legally justify our trial and execution of the leaders of America and Russia as war criminals, after we have dictated the peace. I am sure you will need little preparation for such a duty, for sacrifice has always been the watchword of our people, and the death of a few thousand Jews in exchange for world leadership is indeed a small price to pay.
“To convince you of the certainty of that leadership, let me point out to you how we have turned all of the inventions of the white man into weapons against him. His printing presses and radios are the mouthpieces of our desires, and his heavy industry manufactures the instruments which he sends out to arm Asia and Africa against him. Our interests in Washington are greatly extending the Point Four program for developing industry in backward areas of the world so that after the industrial plants and cities of Europe and America are destroyed by atomic warfare, the whites can offer no resistance against the larger masses of the dark races, who will maintain an unchallenged technological superiority.
“And so, with the vision of world victory before you, go back to your countries and intensify your good work, until that approaching day when Israel will reveal herself in all her glorious destiny as the Light of the World!”
In Mr. Mullins’ history book from which the above speech was taken, he also makes a number of interesting ancillary offerings relevant to this speech. I thought it useful to include a bit of it. Consider:
“This document, which originally reached this country in Yiddish, was translated by Henry H. Klein, a Jew who was horrified by the plans of his people to precipitate an atomic war. Klein later died mysteriously in New York, after a Central Intelligence Agency man visited him. The C.I.A. now has the original of this document in its files in Washington.
“A double agent, P…, who had infiltrated the inner circle of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, told this writer in 1956 that the publication and circulation of Rabbi Rabinovich’s speech in 1952 by a handful of American patriots had caused the Jews to postpone all their plans, and had averted the horrors of a Third World War….” [Supra, p.150]
One of the interesting comments appearing in this speech was the one phrase, “…with every Jew a King…” When I read it, I could not help recalling how many Jews I’ve encountered, such as Larry King (Larry Zeiger), Alan King (Irwin Alan Kniberg), etc., who have chosen that name – or bore it at any rate. I believe that it is linked to this concept amongst Jewry, which long pre-dates Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich.
Downnlaced, 2009
BUDS FROM THE PIERIAN SPRING: SLAVERY
Socialism is a system of slavery in which the slave is paid a salary from money acquired by taxing his income. Ideally, the salary paid and the income taxed perfectly offset one another, so the slave is never better off during any point of his life. Paradise never changes.
However, since salaried slave, as with chattel slaves, are normally provided with “room & board,” the ideal is missed by the subtracted essentials. Both forms are slavery allow, besides room & board, clothing expenses. For chattel slaves the clothing is typically “hand-me-downs” from the ”masters,” the cost of which emjoys an amortized function for the master, which lasts through the lifetime of the slave(s). In effect the chattel slave pays for his master’s new clothes. All chattel slavery functions to the benefit of both master and slave, but it does so on an unequal basis.
The same mechanism may operate for “medicine” and the like, bearing in mind that one man’s medicine is another’s poison. Chattel slavery, in this instance, may continence “free enterprise” by allowing chattel slaves to provide health care for themselves through minor surgery, healing herbs, and so on. However, if the medicine appears to be actually helpful, the master may well seize the source, declaring it a “controlled substance.” Thereafter, medicine will be dispensed to the ill slave according to his perceived future value. As with a lame horse, he may be given a “quick fix” and sold to another master. At other time the master may view “medicine withholding” as an economic way to void the previous relationship. Sound business principles are carefully weighed in these circumstances.
Although a plantation may represent a socialist state in microcosm, modern socialist states more closely resemble a corporate entity, which is owned by the workers. Workers may be advised that they are all equal and that they equally “own” the corporate state. However, invariably, the workers must set up a committee to make decisions in their behalf. These committees then appoint “specialists” to operate the “machinery of state” on a day-to-day basis. This process is known as the “Creation of the Pigs.” Inequality is born, a collective, mini-master rules the corporate state. At this point deceiving the workers is a necessary procedure in the rulers day-to-day operations.
A new political wisdom is born: It Is Foolish To Speak Truthfully To the workers. Indeed, the rulers invariably sponsor a media complex to distract the workers. Matters of fundamental importance to the workers are ignored; in their place are substituted trivial issues, which are accorded the gravest considerations.
In a similar fashion the children of the workers are educated to accept the “vision” of the Pigs. They are discouraged from considering what is good for the workers. False fears are used to guide workers from serious, practical matters, where resolution is possible, into areas that seem to have no solutions yet are colored in nightmarish tones.
The worker accepts the principle that he is paid from the fruit of his labor. He may sense a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” process has entered the equation, but guided by his leaders and the media, continues working for the “brighter tomorrow” which is just around the bend in the road.
In this socialist corporation there is typically a means of pooling the necessary money from which the salaries are paid. Parenthetically, a corporate state begins with a quantity of “money” on hand. This money may be increased or decreased by trade with other corporate states. It may be artifically increased by the leadership from time to time, according to sound principles based on increased productivity or on unsound bases, such as political expediency.
Usually, the leadership will “discover” taxation. Experts will be appointed to oversee the collection. It usually begins with the paycheck and spreads to individual products and services within the corporate state. In the old days of tax collection, the tax collectors had the opportunity to “clip” coins. Such opportunity engendered action. Since additional moneys were had by the sovereign in the initial tax-collection process, the clipped coins weren’t initially noticed. When they were noticed, the tax collectors could and would blame the taxpayers. They would be accused before the sovereign of trying to evade taxes.
That would likely seem to be a reasonable explanation to him. It also would tend to start to isolate the sovereign from his subjects. This framework is typically a feudal one, where mutual obligations are built into the corporate mechanism.
This also seems to apply in modern socialist states. Although the workers “own” the state, on a more practical basis the corporate state owns them. The day-to-day collective master of the socialist state is the leadership. Therefore, the feudal realationship in this situation is practically between the leadership and the workers. Since the workers get economically shafted by the leaders, it is important to keep them distracted by wars, sports, sex, and alcohol/drugs. In the latter instance, “wars” can be declared. The media and entertainment are helpful misdirectors of attention.
Educated to think that they are the “State,” workers are more prone to shoulder the burden of its “shortcomings,” even as their leaders are clearly not suffering under the burden themselves (except in speeches).
Since the pool of money is diverted increasingly from the workers to the leadership structure, the pool is expanded in utter disregard of sound principles based on productivity, so that workers will be paid at least what they received in the past. By necessity this policy creates inflation, usually followed by periods of “price-controls.” The buying power of the workers goes down, usually even if given a modest raise.
Here one notes that it is the leadership, rather than the tax farmers, per se, who “clip” the money gotten from the workers.
Parenthetically, Mr. Eustace Mullins in his NEW HISTORY OF THE JEWS (1968), p.123, stated: “Economists recently revealed that the white Christian middle class pays 84% of its income in taxes. Oh, no, says Mr. American, I only pay 46%, and I have an average job, an average home, and an average family. But, Mr. American, you haven’t figured the hidden taxes you pay on every consumer product which you and your family use. Add that to your 46% income tax, state, federal, and local, and you arrive at the figure 84%. By a startling coincidence, the eminent economist, J.J. Cavanagh, recently concluded a study for the National Zionist Foundation which showed that American Jews own 84% of the real wealth of the United States…”
In regard to Mr. Mullins’ discovery in regard to who pays the bulk of the taxes, one must admit that times have changed and income tax rates have varied, especially under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Mullins didn’t specifically name the Social Security tax, which goes directly into the general revenue account, bonds being provided as collateral. However, I will say from comments heard on the radio by alleged experts, as well as seen in print from time to time, there are a lot of Americans who live from check to check. I’m one of them. Further, although the demographics in America have changed drastically since 1968, whatever people have now entered the American middle class, as replacements for the waning white population, have also assumed the same, or similar, tax burden.
As the population of workers increases, they threaten to dilute the individual “take,” unless productivity increases at least as much. Birth control seems a reaonable solution to a leadership witnessing their own “take” threatened by dilution. The leadership looks to science for “miracle” cures to the socialist state’s economic illness. Science responds with controlled viral epidemics. If the economic malady affects multiple socialist states, the community of leaders ponder “pandemics” as a way out of our “ills.” Another possible population control might be controlled famine. Claiming a disastrous crop failure, the “worried” leadership would them offer workers the stored, emergency rations of nutritionally-vacant foods.
If none of these ploys works and if the workers rise up in wrath, then the wisdom of the leadership manifests itself by the application of force from a well-fed military. Naturally, as the military force expands, barring an increase of productivity, the pool of money for the workers dilutes, as the leaders “clip” money through printing currency to cover the gap. The buying power of the workers is clipped.
By establishing two-tier merchandising, the stores for the leadership are kept well-stocked and constantly-priced, while scarcity and price-inflation characterize the stores built for the workers. The leaders dwell in the comfort of the mansion, while the workers are crammed into “slavetown complexes.”
The salary slavery system is an advance over the old chattel slavery one. In chattel slavery the slaves could at least point the finger of guilt at the master. In the modern corporate slavery system the worker-slaves are “conned” into “pointing the finger” at themselves.
Who are these “leaders,” anyway? Are they the people workers see? Or are they people the workers NEVER see?
Downnlaced, 2009
