Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks: Part 2
Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks: Part 2
Tracing the evolution of the Christian priestly equality impulse
Continued from Part 1….
This part argues that the radical egalitarianism within Christianity continues to shape the West’s core beliefs throughout European history and up to this day. It formed the basis of the French revolution, the Russian revolution and Soviet communism and now the racial egalitarianism in the West, all with a message of “the last shall be first”. Those who consider themselves secular humanists retain these underlying beliefs and are essentially Christian in their metaphysics and beliefs whether or not they consciously acknowledge it. Furthermore, World War 2 forms the foundation origin myth of the modern West with Hitler in the role of the Devil (as every society needs a Devil) because Hitler tried to transvalue these egalitarian values back into inegalitarian values and failed.
THE AFTERMATH OF THE VICTORY OF SPIRITUAL BOLSHEVISM
For the next four hundred years after Christianity’s victory over Rome (i.e. 5th - 9th century AD), reason, intellect, science, and material wealth vanished from the Western world. During these Dark Ages the West lost almost all of the philosophic and literary works of the ancient Hellenists. Apart from a few insignificant compilations by minor figures, nothing happened intellectually until the 9th century. The Middle Ages between the 9th-14th centuries progressed slightly with Scholastics (a general name for the philosophy of the whole Middle Age period), who were ardent Christians committed to advancing the doctrines of the Church by substantiating and harmonizing the dogmas of the authorities. Until the 13th century they engaged in specific disputes on technical matters and specialized problems. Anslem in De Fide Trinitatis summarized the general opinion of the time: one began with faith as their premises and then tried to make sense out of things. “No Christian ought in any way to dispute the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches. But always holding the same faith unquestioningly, loving it, and living by it, he ought himself, so far as he is able, to seek the reasons for it. If he can understand it, let him thank God. If he cannot, let him not raise his head in opposition, but bow in reverence.”
The central factor for exiting the Middle Ages was that after more than 600 years, in the century between 1150 and 1250, the West recovered all of the major works of Aristotle. This occurred as a result of increasing contacts with the culture of the Muslims, who had found a full copy of Aristotle’s works in a Syrian basement in the 600s — the most momentous archaeological discovery in history. Once they were reintroduced to the West (as almost all of Aristotle’s works had been lost or destroyed under the Christians) they were translated from Arabic and other tongues into Latin, organized and systematized, and soon became widely known.
Aristotle’s writings struck the 13th century like a bombshell. At first the Church banned Aristotle’s works outright because there was a violent contrast between the Church and Aristotlean understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The better minds could not ignore Aristotle (or destroy the knowledge, as the Muslims possessed it), nor repudiate Christianity, and they struggled to come up with a reconciliation. Thomas Aquinas had the best attempt with his Summa Theologica (1485) and his approach was ultimately adopted by the Church (but not officially until 1879), and it had profound significance. Aquinas advocated that man has some share in working out his own this-worldly destiny, that he ought to develop his rational powers and, as far as possible, enjoy his stay on earth. In constructing a Christian philosophy within an Aristotelian framework, he made Aristotelianism respectable and acceptable to the most advanced thinkers of the medieval world, which was the biggest factor in ending Christian persecution of reason and science. This in turn opened the door to the Renaissance.
Inventions during the Renaissance included the compound microscope, the telescope, the thermometer, the barometer, the air pump, greatly improved clocks, Gutenberg’s printing press which made the communication of ideas available to the public and the world was discovered by Columbus, Vasco de Gama and Magellan. Manuscripts of the Hellenists were unearthed and translated. Many of the schools of the ancient world flourished again.
During this period the major religious development was the Protestant Reformation led by Luther and Calvin, which was a reaction to the tyranny of the clergy, the sale of indulgences, and their amassing of wealth by extractions from the populace. For example, “In 1517 the following scale of fees was charged. For an indulgence in the case of sodomy, 12 ducets; for sacrilege, 9 ducets; for murder, 7; for witchcraft, 6.”
Protestants rebelled against the authority of the Church, and its basic principle was the right of each man to read the Bible and commune with God directly. Luther’s belief was that what you do and how you live your life are not essential — “faith over works” unadulterated by reason, ritual or action was what mattered. The end effect of this belief was to separate religion from daily living. The lack of a formal dogma and the emphasis on the liberty of the individual conscience was quite anti-authoritarian, and all sorts of Protestant sects arose each with their own idiosyncratic beliefs.
Martin Luther’s Protestant positions received widespread Jewish support. In gratitude he wrote a laudatory publication, “Jesus Christ was Born a Jew”; however, this changed once he read the Talmud, which was introduced to him by a converted Jew. Shocked by what he read, which he believed was deeply anti-Christian, he wrote the pamphlet “The Jews and Their Lies” and was extraordinarily vitriolic in condemning them thereafter. John Calvin was a second generation Protestant Reformer and he helped to put Luther’s insights into a more comprehensive and covenantal context.
Christianity’s core focus on radical spiritual equality had been kept in check, to an extent, by a hierarchical, reactionary Catholic structure that evolved over centuries. By discarding this structure, Protestantism unleashed wild egalitarian energies which would evolve to the secular universalism most of the upper class in the West believe today, as explained below.
SECULAR UNIVERSALISM IS HYPER-CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT THE BELIEF IN GOD
In England, Calvinist Puritans developed an "apocalyptic tradition [that] envisioned the ultimate sacralization of England as God's chosen nation.” The word apocalyptic means the idea that there is an approaching confrontation between good and evil that will transform society; and for Christians this involves the Second Coming of Christ. This Christian Apocalypse involves the Battle of Armageddon where God triumphs over Satan and then decides which Christian souls are saved and rewarded with everlasting life in the new Garden of Eden under God's holy rule in a new millennium of peace. Puritan settlers transferred this notion to the New World colonies, and apocalyptic fervor and millennial expectation was common. If you think that time is running out, the saving of souls takes on central importance. After the United States was founded, these ideas were transformed into an aggressive variety of evangelizing to save souls for Christ before the final apocalyptic judgment that would send the unsaved to Hell.
From the 1730s through the 1770s there was a Protestant revival movement in the colonies dubbed the First Great Awakening. The new evangelists tended to be zealous and judgmental. Not everyone was happy with the results of the First Great Awakening, and some rejected the trend and remained on the traditional orthodox Calvinist path. Others rejected both and developed what became Unitarianism as a response. By the early 1800s there were three tendencies in colonial Protestantism: Orthodoxy in the form of northern Calvinist Congregationalists and southern Anglicans; Revivalist rationalism and evangelism that drew not only from the Congregationalists and Anglicans (later called Episcopalians), but also swept through the smaller Protestant denominations such as the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians; and Unitarianism, still relatively small but influential in the northeast.
The Unitarians rejected the Calvinist idea that man was born in sin and argued that sometimes people did bad things because they were trapped in poverty or lacked the education required to move up in society. In the early 1800s the Unitarians split from Calvinist Congregationalism and succeeded in taking over many religious institutions in New England such as churches and schools. Harvard, which was founded as a religious college in 1636 by the Puritans, came under control of the Unitarians in 1805 as the orthodox Calvinist Congregationalists lost religious and political power. The Unitarians took the idea of transforming society and changing personal behavior popularized by the First Great Awakening and shifted it into a plan for weaving a social safety net under the auspices of the secular government.
Curtis Yarvin argues that Unitarianism, the predominant view of the elite higher education institutions, ultimately transformed into a secular crypto-religion which he called Ultracalvinism, an ideology with the same belief system as Unitarianism except with the belief in God dropped. The benefit of this evolutionary change was it got around the separation of Church and State in the 20th century which allowed it to then outcompete its religious rivals.
A Time magazine article in 1942 describes how the Federal Council of Churches, an organization of mainline Protestant sects with Calvinist roots, endorsed “U.S. Protestantism’s super-protestant new program” with a system of world government quite similar to the world we have today, which is what quickly evolved into Ultracalvanism:
Religion: American Malvern
Monday, Mar. 16, 1942
These are the high spots of organized U.S. Protestantism’s super-protestant new program for a just and durable peace after World War II: Ultimately, “a world government of delegated powers.” Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism. Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty. International control of all armies & navies. “A universal system of money … so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation.” Worldwide freedom of immigration. Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade. “Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples” (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.). “No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations.” A “democratically controlled” international bank “to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans.”
This program was adopted last week by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestant church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. “As Christian citizens,” its sponsors affirmed, “we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realities and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living.”
Among the 375 delegates who drafted the program were 15 bishops of five denominations, seven seminary heads (including Yale, Chicago, Princeton, Colgate-Rochester), eight college and university presidents (including Princeton’s Harold W. Dodds), practically all the ranking officials of the Federal Council and a group of well-known laymen, including John Mott, Irving Fisher and Harvey Firestone. “Intellectually,” said Methodist Bishop Ivan Lee Holt of Texas, “this is the most distinguished American church gathering I have seen in 30 years of conference-going.”….
Politically, the conference’s most important assertion was that many duties now performed by local and national governments “can now be effectively carried out only by international authority.” Individual nations, it declared, must give up their armed forces “except for preservation of domestic order” and allow the world to be policed by an international army & navy. This League-of-Nations-with-teeth would also have “the power of final judgment in controversies between nations … the regulation of international trade and population movements among nations.” The ultimate goal: “a duly constituted world government of delegated powers: an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international-administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority.”
According to Yarvin, this “super protestant new program” quickly thereafter dropped its belief in God and claimed its beliefs were based in reason and science. The evolutionary benefit of secularizing Unitarian beliefs allowed it to outcompete its religious competition in an environment which enforced a separation of Church and State. He states, “In the 20th century, rationalism—the claim that one’s beliefs are derived from reason and science—will always outcompete justification from revelation…Ultracalvinism, unlike the “super-protestantism” can twist the First Amendment and the general humanist tradition of religious tolerance into a weapon to assault its enemies, the unreformed revelationist Christians. Before the 1950s, the nature of the U.S. as a Christian nation was generally accepted. But when the Warren Court revised this tradition, it had the letter of the law (if not its historic meaning) on its side. Effectively, cryptocalvinism rose to power through Christianity, and then used that power to “pull up the ladder”—a classic Machiavellian maneuver.” Yarvin explains further:
The “ultracalvinist hypothesis” is the proposition that the present-day belief system commonly called “progressive,” “multiculturalist,” “universalist,” “liberal,” “politically correct,” etc., is actually best considered as a sect of Christianity. Specifically, ultracalvinism is the primary surviving descendant of the American mainline Protestant tradition, which has been the dominant belief system of the United States since its founding. It should be no surprise that it continues in this role, or that since the US’s victory in the last planetary war it has spread worldwide.
Ultracalvinism is an ecumenical syncretism of the mainline, not traceable to any one sectarian label. But its historical roots are easy to track with the tag Unitarian. The meaning of this word has mutated considerably in the last 200 years, but at any point since the 1830s it is found attached to the most prestigious people and ideas in the US, and since 1945 in the world… The “calvinist” half of this word refers to the historical chain of descent from John Calvin and his religious dictatorship in Geneva, passing through the English Puritans to the New England Unitarians, abolitionists and Transcendentalists, Progressives and Prohibitionists, super-protestants, hippies and secular theologians, and down to our own dear progressive multiculturalists. The “ultra” half refers to my perception that, at least compared to other Christian sects, the beliefs of this faith are relatively aggressive and unusual….
By my count, the ultracalvinist creed has four main points:
First, ultracalvinists believe in the universal brotherhood of man. As an Ideal (an undefined universal) this might be called Equality. (“All men and women are born equal.”) If we wanted to attach an “ism” to this, we could call it fraternalism.
Second, ultracalvinists believe in the futility of violence. The corresponding ideal is of course Peace. (“Violence only causes more violence.”) This is well-known as pacifism.
Third, ultracalvinists believe in the fair distribution of goods. The ideal is Social Justice, which is a fine name as long as we remember that it has nothing to do with justice in the dictionary sense of the word, that is, the accurate application of the law. (“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”) To avoid hot-button words, we will ride on a name and call this belief Rawlsianism.
Fourth, ultracalvinists believe in the managed society. The ideal is Community, and a community by definition is led by benevolent experts, or public servants. (“Public servants should be professional and socially responsible.”) After their counterparts east of the Himalaya, we can call this belief mandarism….
Now, where do these beliefs come from? What is their origin and etiology? Why do so many of us in 2007 believe in these particular concepts? Were they invented in 1967? Or 1907? Or 1607? Or what?
The four points are common and easily recognizable tenets of Protestant Christianity, specifically in its Calvinist or Puritan strain. You can find them all over the place in the New Testament, and any subject of Oliver Cromwell’s saintly republic would have recognized them instantly. Rawlsianism is definitely the last to develop, but even it is very common in the 17th century, when its adherents were known as Diggers—a name that, not surprisingly, was later reused. Ultracalvinism fits quite neatly in the English Dissenter and low church tradition. (Note the blatant POV of the latter page, with loaded words like “reform,” a good indication that Wikipedians incline to ultracalvinism.)…
If the above is an accurate analysis, what we have here is very interesting. Because it is a modern, thriving, and remarkably well-camouflaged, example of crypto-Christianity.
Ultracalvinism’s camouflage mechanism is easy to understand. If you are an ultracalvinist, you must dispute the claim that the four points are actually Christian, because you believe in them, and you believe they are justified by reason rather than faith. Therefore they are universal and no one can doubt them, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew.
If you are not an ultracalvinist, you are probably some other kind of Christian, presumably one who still believes in God, the Bible as revelation, non-universal salvation, etc. Therefore you see ultracalvinism just as Catholics once saw Protestants, or Trinitarians saw Unitarians—as not Christians at all. So the result is the same. The ultracalvinist cloak of invisibility is only at risk from freethinking atheists, such as myself—a tiny and mostly irrelevant population.
The question is: why? How did we fall for this? How did we enable an old, well-known strain of Christianity to mutate and take over our minds, just by discarding a few bits of theological doctrine and describing itself as “secular”?…In other words, we have to look at the adaptive landscape of ultracalvinism. What are the adaptive advantages of crypto-Christianity? Why did those Unitarians, or even “scientific socialists,” who downplayed their Christian roots, outcompete their peers? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious, really. The combination of electoral democracy and “separation of church and state” is an almost perfect recipe for crypto-Christianity.
Powerful words. But why were the Unitarians able to drop their belief in God but keep its underlying ethics and metaphysics in the first place? It’s an odd thing.
The answer is that the seeds for such a modification already existed from the early days of Christianity. Specifically, Plato’s interpretation of Logos, which had an enormous impact on Christianity and formed a cornerstone of the religion, made it clear that reason was associated with divinity. Blogger Brett Andersen explains, quoting theologan William Inge: “Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology….[If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces.” Tom Holland writes that in Christianity “every human being had been made equally by God and endowed by him with the same spark of reason.” Andersen continues:
That “spark of reason” was intimately tied up with notions of moral equality. The connection of ideas goes something like this, in the form of a syllogism:
If divine soul = reasoning capacity
And moral equality = equality of souls
Then moral equality = equality of reasoning capacity
Therefore, following this logic to its natural conclusion, the belief becomes everyone has equal inherent reasoning capacity except for the -isms and -phobias holding back equality: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. It wasn’t a large jump for Unitarians to drop their belief in God to become tabula rasa blank-slatists.
Interestingly, after these secular ultra-Calvinists outcompeted their evangelical and Catholic competition by getting around the separation of Church and State divide, they promptly turned around and let Jews take over their positions in society. Per Kevin MacDonald:
My account would benefit from discussing the acceptance of Jews by the Protestant establishment after World War II. However, what I have seen thus far suggests Jewish involvement in the dramatic changes in Protestant sensibilities as well…Cuddihy focuses on the elevation of Judaism to the status of one of the “big three” U.S. religions, to the point that a rabbi officiates at the presidential inauguration even though Jews constitute approximately 2–3% of the population. Cuddihy argues that this religious surface served as a protective coloring and led to a sort of crypto-Judaism in which Jewish ethnic identities were submerged in order to make them appear civilized to the goyim. As part of this contract, Niebuhr acknowledged “the stubborn will of the Jews to live as a peculiar people”—an acknowledgement by an important Protestant leader that the Jews could remain a people with a surface veneer of religion….
What the Protestants gave up was far more important because I think it has been a contributing factor in the more or less irreversible ethnic changes in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western world. Judaism became unconditionally accepted as a modern religion even while retaining a commitment to its ethnic core. It conformed outwardly to the religious norms of the U.S., but it also continued to energetically pursue its ethnic interests, especially with regard to issues where there is a substantial consensus among Jews: support for Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church/state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties. What is remarkable is that a wealthy, powerful, and highly talented ethnic group was able to pursue its interests without those interests ever being the subject of open political discussion by mainstream political figures, for at least the last 60 years— since Lindbergh’s ill-fated Des Moines speech of 1941.
…The downgrading of the ethnic aspect of Judaism essentially allowed Jews to win the ethnic war without anyone even being able to acknowledge that it was an ethnic war. For example, during the immigration debates of the 1940s–1960s Jews were described by themselves and others as “people of the Jewish faith.” They were simply another religion in an officially pluralistic religious society, and part of Jewish posturing was a claim to a unique universalistic moral-religious vision that could only be achieved by enacting legislation that in fact furthered their particularist ethnic aims. The universalistic moral-religious vision promoted by Jewish activists really amounted to taking the Protestants at their own word—by insisting that every last shred of ethnic identity among Protestants be given up while Jews were implicitly allowed to keep theirs if they only promised to behave civilly.1
Therefore the supposedly secular beliefs that most people in the West have today are actually a form of crypto-Christianity. When viewed in light of its anti-authoritarian, anti-hierarchical Calvinist origins, these beliefs led directly to a fanatical, secular religion hyper-focused on equality in all its forms, and was therefore easily susceptible to outside influence and control. This strange dynamic continues today with Jews having a -40 favorability toward evangelicals while evangelicals are +39 toward Jews per polling - perhaps the latter simply want to immanentize the eschaton:
THE WORLD IS STILL DEALING WITH THE EFFECTS OF SPIRITUAL BOLSHEVISM TODAY
Was the equality and priestly-energy germ of the Christian religion always going to develop toward more and more equality, breaking down over the centuries whatever barriers stood in its way? Was a movement like Protestantism inevitable once Aristotlean reason was reintroduced to Europe and Gutenberg’s printing press was invented (allowing the plentiful, cheap propagation of information, which was a previous bottleneck favoring priests) given the core doctrine of Paul of Tarsus rests on spiritual bolshevism?
If it was inevitable, did the diminishing of Catholicism via Protestantism’s anti-hierarchical and pro-equality spiritual impulses lead to the weakening of community spirit, eventually allowing non-integrating foreigners like the Rothschilds to take over society via central bank schemes? If so, what would ideologically encourage the public to resist the Rothschilds buying up all the media and turning it against them, leading to all of the horrors discussed in this essay and white, western civilization imploding? Were these trends inevitable based on the initial setup of the religion?
The triumph of Christianity over Rome, destroying thousands of years of scientific progress and general knowledge, has ultimately led to a modern, extreme form of the priestly mindset, one based on subservience, conformity, equality, pity, guilt, suffering and self-hatred: in other words, the herd morality. Greatness, strength, individuality, self-determination, immediacy of purpose, honor, acceptance of hierarchy and nobility has been shunned; one can scarcely devise a lower conception of man.
This is not an idle, theoretical concept; the triumph of spiritual bolshevism affected society’s core values and colors how we feel about every aspect of life today, to the point where we no longer identify with the values that bred early western civilization. Historian Tom Holland argues this point in his book “Dominion”, which tracks how Christianity remade the world:
“The more years I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, so the more alien I increasingly found it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practiced a particularly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognized as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value. Why did I find this disturbing? Because, in my morals and ethics, I was not a Spartan or a Roman at all. That my belief in God had faded over the course of my teenage years did not mean that I had ceased to be Christian. For a millennium and more, the civilization into which I had been born was Christendom. Assumptions that I had grown up with - about how a society should properly be organized, and the principles that it should uphold - were not bred of classical antiquity, still less of ‘human nature’, but very distinctively of that civilization’s Christian past. So profound has been the impact of Christianity on the development of Western civilization that it has come to be hidden from view. It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those whose triumph is to be taken for granted.”2
Holland correctly points out that a pure master morality society results in exploitation and ignoring the basic dignity of most of humanity but, on the other hand, a pure priestly slave morality society results in the leveling of man to the lowest common denominator. Secular ultra-Calvinists who rule the west today have lost all internal balance, containing all of the bad attributes of their religious forebears and none of the good. They are hellbent on destruction of hierarchy and inequality everywhere they see it; a complete leveling which brings the good down to the lowest common dominator of the masses, destroying anything great or exceptional. A world where this energy dominates is a world of gray dreariness, no laughter, no excitement, a world of Death.3 And they attempt this with the glee and sanctimony of the righteous pursuing a Holy War against their enemies who they think they are “saving” against their own judgment, while also possessing no ability to resist globohomo meta-narratives.
When society loses its equilibrium between priestly and warrior energies, between master and slave morality, a balance of which is necessary to maintain a healthy society, there is a big problem. The question is: what changes are necessary to restore parity between egalitarianism and hierarchy, between priestly and warrior energy? Can it be accomplished with existing institutions like the Catholic Church, and if so in such institution’s current incarnation, or does it need reform? Or is something entirely new needed, either religious or secular?
For well over a millennium Catholicism had maintained some degree of balance between the poles of priestly equality and warrior inequality. It employed a rigid hierarchy, focused on an individual’s salvation and piety with the man as head of household even as it preached the equality of (Christian) humankind, while displaying a willingness to defend itself physically against threats from other religions and cultures. But Catholic numbers are decreasing - according to Pew Reserach, the American Catholic population declined by 3 million between 2008 and 2015, and worse, in 2015 41% of people who had been raised Catholic are no longer Catholic. And Catholic mass attendance has fallen by half since 1970:
Additionally, the Pope is a globohomo shill and according to Archbishop Vigano, there exists a deep Church pushing “heresy, sodomy, and corruption.” He states: “There is a very strict relationship between the doctrinal crisis of the Church and the immorality of the clergy, that scandalously reaches up to the highest levels of the hierarchy. But it is also apparent that this crisis is being used by the ultra-progressive wing not only to impose a false morality together with a false doctrine, but also to irremediably discredit the Holy Church and the Papacy before the faithful and the world, through the action of its own leaders.” Viganò added that a “gay lobby” has “infiltrated into the Church and that is literally terrified that good pastors will shed light on the influence that it exercises in the Secretariat of State, in the Congregations of the Roman Curia, in the Dioceses, and over the entire Church…[Pope] Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image.” Viganò said that “these three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church.”
While Catholic respect for hierarchy and tradition makes them natural allies against secular ultra-Calvinists in restoring an element of balance to the world by reintroducing masculine warrior values, Catholicism at this time seems like it is declining and institutionally captured.
JEWISH AND GENTILE TENSIONS STEM FROM FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT OUTLOOKS
According to historian Karma Ben Jonathan in Reconciliation and Its Discontents: Unresolved Tensions in Jewish-Christian Relations, which deals with the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 and the document Nostra aetate, in which the Catholic Church declared the abandonment of its anti-Jewish heritage and its desire to reconcile with Judaism, “Ben Johanan concludes that, whereas Christian discourse aimed at conciliation, Orthodox Jewish discourse responded to Christianity with growing hostility, which predated the Second Vatican Council and deepened thereafter.” Maurice Samuel, a Romanian-born British and American award winning novelist (winning the 1944 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award and the Itzik Mangar Prize), translator and lecturer of Jewish heritage, argues that Jews and non-Jews are simply incompatible in his 1924 book “You Gentiles.” In it he states:
“Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divides all of you from us….that primal difference, which I have sensed more and more keenly as I have tasted more and more of life, your life and our life, is a difference in the sum totals of our respective emotions under the stimulus of the external world; it is a difference in the essential quality or tone of our mental and spiritual being. Life is to you one thing — to us another. And according to these two essential qualities we make answer to the needs and impulses which are common to both of us.
To you life is a game and gallant adventure, and all life’s enterprises partake of the spirit of the adventurous. To us life is a serious and sober duty pointed to a definite and inescapable task. Your relation to gods and men spring from the joy and rhythm of the temporary comradeship or enmity of spirit. Our relation to God and men is dictated by a somber subjection to some eternal principle. Your way of life, your moralities and codes, are the rules of a game - none the less severe or exacting for that, but not inspired by a sense of fundamental purposefulness…For you certain acts are “unbecoming” to the pertinent ideal type - whether he be a knight or a “decent fellow.” We have no such changing system of reference - only one command….we will not accept your rules because we do not understand them…
This difference in behavior and reaction springs from something much more earnest and significant than a difference in beliefs: it springs from a difference in our biologic equipment. It does not argue the inferiority of the one or the other. It is a difference in the taking of life which cannot be argued. You have your way of life, we ours. In your system of life we are essentially without “honor.” In our system of life you are essentially without morality. In your system of life we must forever appear graceless; to us you forever appear Godless.
Seen from beyond both of us, there is neither right nor wrong. There is your Western civilization. If your sense of the impermanence of things, the essential sportiness of all effort, the gamesomeness and gameness of life, has blossomed in events and laws like these I have seen around me, it cannot, from an external point of view (neither yours nor ours) be classified as right or wrong. Wars for Helen and for Jenkins’ ear; duels for honor and for gambling debts, death for a flag, loyalties, gallant gestures, a world that centers round sport and war, with a system of virtues related to these; art that springs not from God but from the joyousness and suffering of the free man, a world of play which takes death itself as part of the play, to be approached as carelessly and pleasantly as any other turn of chance, cities and states and mighty enterprises built up on the same rush of feeling and energy as carries a football team - and in the same ideology - this is the efflorescence of the Western world. It has a magnificent, evanescent beauty. It is a valiant defiance of the gloom of the universe, a warrior’s shout into the ghastly void - a futile thing to us, beautiful and boyish. For all its inconsistencies and failures within itself, it has a charm and rhythm which are unknown to us. We could never have built a world like yours….
These are two ways of life, utterly alien to the other. Each has its place in the world - but they cannot flourish in the same soil, they cannot remain in contact without antagonism. Though to life itself each way is a perfect utterance, to each other they are enemies.”4
Samuel’s contention is that there is an enormous, unsurmountable gulf between the perspectives of the Jews and the non-Jews, and such differences are reflected in the Jewish texts: “But I ask: Are Plato and Shakespeare and Kant in your life what the Bible, the Talmud, the rabbis are in ours? To our very masses, the Jewish masses, the wonders of the world are Moses, Elijah, the Rambam, the Vilna Gaon, the Dubna Maggid, the chassid in the neighboring village. These actually dominate our life, as governments, mass radio exploits, armies and Woolworths dominate yours. We are the people of the Book. But we were the people of the Book before a million copies could be printed in a single day.”5 6
WHAT CAN ONE EXPECT TO HAPPEN IF RACIAL BOLSHEVISM WINS?
The spiritual bolshevik strategy pursued by Saul of Tarsus in Rome is closer to the racial bolshevik strategy being pursued today in the West than with the economic bolshevik strategy pursued in Russia. In Russia, the Bolsheviks seized control of the government quickly, setting off a massive and bloody civil war, and then instituted a massive Gulag system which killed tens of millions to keep everyone in line. It was fast, bloody, and brutal.
On the other hand the Christian victory over Hellenist Rome developed slowly and was nurtured for hundreds of years. Christians first took a foothold in the Middle East, expanded relatively peacefully, and slowly growing to such a size they challenged the Roman Hellenist traditions. From there Emperors converted, enacting edicts against the Hellenist masses, destroying their temples and discriminating against them, getting worse over time until Hellenism was wiped out. Then within 100 years Rome was sacked and destroyed by barbarians and Rome entered the Dark Ages which lasted 1,000 years in the Western Empire. We can see much similarities with the racial bolshevism being pushed now against whites: created to undermine society at its weak point (inequality between races today; inequality between class in Rome), growing slowly over time with major victories via the 1965 Immigration Act and the subsequent 1980s Reagan amnesty, which together led to a drastic decrease in the white percentage of the population and which continues apace.
Just as the Hellenists were unable to push back the usurping Christian threat because Christianity doctrine was designed by Paul of Tarsus to target Rome’s weak point, the white population have been utterly unable, despite grumbling and complaints and occasional short-term voting successes, to coherently and vigorously address the anti-white “woke” crusade which has also been specifically crafted to attack western civilization’s weak point (racial inequality and central bank usury), and there appears few signs of that changing. As the country has turned more brown since the 1960s, the establishment has increased the rhetoric against the majority white population, demonizing them and turning the law against them with greater frequency and intensity over time (and even proposing ignoring Supreme Court rulings it doesn’t like). The boomer generation really doesn’t want to address these challenges. Compare their collective head-in-the-sand behavior with that of the last Roman “pagan” generation, per historian Edward J. Watts:
The ‘final pagan generation’…is made up of the last group of elite Romans…who were born into a world in which most people believed that the pagan public religious order of the past few millennia would continue indefinitely. They were the last Romans to grow up in a world that simply could not imagine a Roman world dominated by a Christian majority. This critical failure of imagination is completely understandable. At the beginning of the second decade of the fourth century there had never been a Christian emperor, and the childhood and early adolescence of members of this generation living in the East coincided with moments when the resources of the Roman state were devoted to the suppression of Christianity. The longest-lived of this group died in an empire that would never again see a non-Christian sovereign, and that no longer financially supported the public sacrifices, temples, and festivals that had dominated Roman life in their youth. They lived through a time of dramatic change that they could neither anticipate nor fully understand as it was unfolding.7
The same is happening today as the white Christian population is rapidly replaced by outsiders and the rhetoric increased against them. If this pattern continues (as every indicator indicates it is) one could expect this to culminate in a leftist singularity leading to actual white genocide, or a slower pattern of descent and decline into something like Brazil, where very high income earners live in armed, gated communities surrounded by a sea of hostile, imported, impoverished foreigners and immigrants, and where the rich must be escorted by armed guards whenever they leave their compounds. Without significant changes, one can expect a “victory” against the white masses followed by western civilizational collapse, leading to another dark ages lasting a millennia or longer, perhaps forever (all easily accessible energy on the planet has already been consumed, and it’s hard to imagine a high tech society without easily accessible energy); or, alternatively, a Rothschild neoliberal feudalism victory where aggressive, woke AI and total informational and financial control brings about Hell on Earth.
Still, Christianity had promised its believers a Heavenly afterlife, and communism had promised its believers economic abundance; it’s hard to imagine this anti-white “woke” religion, which has an entirely negative belief structure with no promises to its believers other than smash-and-grab, having much of an impact afterwards if it succeeds in destroying western civilization.
THE UPDATED FOUNDATION ORIGIN MYTH OF THE WEST
Blogger Cesar Tort states that every society in history has had a foundational origin myth, something used to inspire people and bring them together in shared belief and values. In Rome it was Romulus8 and Remus; the Aztec’s migrated from a homeland called Aztlan. A society can have multiple origin stories depending on its era: America’s origin myth was the Revolutionary War up through the Civil War, when the origin story updated to Lincoln freeing the slaves; and it updated again after World War 2 when America became a superpower.
A foundational origin myth always has three elements: first it must “comport and provide an origin, framework and superstructure for society and how it interacts with the world and itself. Second, it defines what is the ultimate good and conversely, ultimate evil for the reasons of defining values and from those to justify who holds power. And third it determines and defines what is held sacred in a society.
For the modern West, the narrative of the Second World War has become our new foundation myth, and it fulfills all three functions. Whenever referring to modern history the line is drawn: we live in the post-war period. For the most part the lines on the maps, the institutions and more importantly how we define our era as a society—all find their origins in World War II.”
Unfortunately, the foundation origin myth that motivates modern western society is an entirely negative myth, making the society seem evil and beyond redemption:
“You learn from a very early young age that the ultimate incarnation of pure evil were the Nazis and thus those that oppose Nazis are the ultimate good. From this stance of ultimate good Western civilization drives its core values of anti-nationalism; unity being a weakness and diversity being a strength. All measure of civilizational confidence is bigotry. Any questioning with regards to the differences in people, cultures and their compatibility is taboo.
This is why for example the violence perpetrated by groups like Antifa can be morally justified at least to themselves. Anyone who is a nationalist; anyone who wants to retain tradition, anyone who wants to limit immigration or believes in things like gender roles is enacting, in their minds, the narrative of the ultimate evil. It is self-evident when you hear mobs of automatons screeching at any group or individual they disagree with ‘Nazis off our streets. Nazis off our streets’…
The only real value, topic or event that is held a sacrosanct and can not be mocked, joked about or even questioned on pain of imprisonment in many countries in Europe is the Holocaust. Throughout the Western world in its entirety, to question even the details of the Holocaust is to have yourself shunned by society and made a social pariah.
And it is here when we begin to understand the West’s self-loathing, and what really is a sincere desire for collective, cultural, physical and psychological suicide—because all three functions of our post-war foundation myth are negative in the extreme. Instead of the origin being of strength, fertility and of a new and blossoming beginning, it is one of violence, death and destruction. Instead of ultimate good taking the central position in the story, it is in fact occupied by ultimate evil.
In the post-war world Adolf Hitler is the personification of pure, unadulterated evil. And it is he that holds the central position in our World War II narrative.
Instead of the sacred being that which is revered, venerated and mysterious in Nature, it is the Holocaust: a crime against humanity.
Simply put: Our new, World War II foundation myth is an extremely negative one, and has poisoned the spirit of Western civilization, and has caused it to lose all confidence in itself, its values and even the reason for its very existence—and given time will destroy it, utterly.
All thought and what is considered the bounds and topics one may speak and orient oneself in are all downstream from this myth. And as long as the West’s understanding of itself is determined by this negative foundation myth the only direction is down.
The power of myths is not a trivial thing. Lose your original foundation myth and you will lose your identity.
Look at the United States. Before the World War II foundation myth supplanted its original foundation myth, its origins was settlers founding a new and just land. Ultimate good was central to the narrative and was centered around freedom and the ability to pursue happiness; and the sacred was encapsulated by family, community, country, God. America’s specific foundation myth—since the adoption of the all-new encompassing Western World War II foundation myth and through its lands—sees America’s origin in the theft of the land from peaceful and noble natives. Ultimate evil in the form of slavery is central to the narrative, and the sacred is the unquestioning belief in white supremacy and the need to dismantle it at any cost.
The entire West is not only losing their local but also its civilizational identity, and has been changed to this World War II foundation myth, which has born the West its new corrosive, self-hating and malignant identity—and will if not [stopped] utterly destroy it.
Maybe now you can understand Germany’s wild desire to destroy themselves as quickly as possible. They are the progenitors and genesis of this new foundation myth; whether truthfully or not, doesn’t matter.”
Regarding the Holocaust, two interesting points of note. First, historian David Irving, who is cancelled and considered “extremely far right”, seems to acknowledge a version of the Holocaust in his book “Hitler’s War”, page 577:
“In dry tables, Himmler’s chief statistician, Dr. Richard Korherr, had analysed the fate of the world’s estimated 17,000,000 Jews: Europe’s 10,000,000 had dwindled by 45 percent since 1938, owing to emigration, the high natural mortality rate, and the enforced ‘evacuation’ that had begun with the prohibition of emigration late in 1941. To Himmler’s annoyance, on reading the sixteen-page document on March 27 he found that it stated expressis verbis on page 9 that of the 1,449,692 Jews deported from the eastern provinces 1,274,166 had been subject to ‘special treatment’ at camps in the Gneralgouvernement and a further 145,301 similarly dealt with in the Warthegau. (Dr. Korherr, it should be said, still denies that the words meant ‘liquidated.’). On April 1 Himmler had the report abridged ‘for submission to the Fuhrer’; and a few days later he instructed that he ‘did not want there to be any mention of “special treatment of Jews” whatever.’ According to the new text, the Jews would have been ‘channeled through’ the camps to Russia then ‘redirected to special treatment’ at the camps. As Himmler explained to his staff on April 9, the report would serve magnificently for ‘camouflage purposes’ in later years.”9
On the other hand, according to former South African central banker and author Stephen Goodson, in the 8,263 pages of World War II memories written by Winston Churchill (“The Second World War”), Charles de Gaulle (“Memoires De Geurre”), Dwight D. Eisenhower (“Crusade in Europe”) and Harry S. Truman (“The Memoirs of Harry S. Truman”), all written between 1948-1959, there is no mention of millions of Jews in Europe having been annihilated. Wouldn’t that have been incredible propaganda to play up in their memoirs if they had something to say about it?
Whatever one thinks about the Holocaust, one can acknowledge it’s an extremely potent meta-narrative pushed by the media for decades and one that has had the effect of pushing civilizational suicide onto the west — and not for just the Axis countries, but including, incredibly illogically, against the Allies that fought against them as well. It’s been turned into a blood libel against all whites worldwide, and it’s illegal to question this meta-narrative in many European countries upon threat of imprisonment and asset forfeiture. It has handed the trans-nationalist puppeteers an iron-clad defense against charges of undermining society. The effect of this narrative has been entirely positive for pushing globohomo upon the world and entirely negative for nationalists and those believers in representative government.
THE REASON WHY HITLER LOOMS SO LARGE IN THE WESTERN PSYCHE
The Holocaust as a new, entirely negative origin myth of western society with Hitler as the embodiment of the Devil serves globohomo goals by sapping the strength and vigor of western civilization. However, it could not have been pulled off if World War 2 didn’t represent a titanic spiritual battle between Hellenist Roman-esque warrior values and the Jewish/Christian transvaluation of those values into priestly values.10
Hitler himself saw World War 2 as a struggle to restore the pagan values that had been destroyed by the Christianity narrative, and he expounds on this in detail in his Table Talks (which were transcriptions of his uncensored, private comments). His goal was to defeat the Allies and then, over time, mothball the Christian Church entirely, replacing it with Roman-style pantheistic paganism and nature worship.
He decided to wait during the war because he did not want to sap fighting strength or divide the nation given most of Germany was Christian. Even then, he thought the Christians were a roadblock during the war and he bemoaned the fact that the population wasn’t Islamic; he believed Muslims would have been much more eager to adopt a warrior lifestyle.11 Here is the relevant portion of the Table Talks, page 76-79:
When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realize how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity. You should read what he says on the subject.
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer….
Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely. When he learnt that Jesus's supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the Galilean's teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated. It's in this context that we must understand the famous "illumination". Think of it, the Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that time, as now, money was their god.
On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman state by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, he would possess boundless power.
The ancient world had its gods and served them. But the priests interposed between the gods and men were servants of the state, for the gods protected the city. In short, they were the emanation of a power that the people had created. For that society, the idea of an only god was unthinkable. In this sphere, the Romans were tolerance itself. The idea of a universal god could seem to them only a mild form of madness—for, if three peoples fight one another, each invoking the same god, this means that, at any rate, two of them are praying in vain.
Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences. St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman state. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound. Under cover of a pretend religious instruction, the priests continue to incite the faithful against the state….
St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that's because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.
It's striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul's efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle's teaching. But in Rome Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people….
Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.
It was only later, under the influence of the Germanic spirit, that Christianity gradually lost its openly Bolshevistic character. It became, to a certain degree, tolerable…. In the old days, as now, destruction of art and civilisation. The Bolsheviks of their day, what didn't they destroy in Rome, in Greece and elsewhere? They've behaved in the same way amongst us and in Russia.
One must compare the art and civilisation of the Romans— their temples, their houses—with the art and civilisation represented at the same period by the abject rabble of the catacombs. In the old days, the destruction of the libraries. Isn't that what happened in Russia? The result: a frightful levelling-down. Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. To-day, it's in the name of Bolshevism.
The fundamental reason why western society has gone into a singular focus on extreme equality is because the pagan warrior energy of a 2,000 year old conflict tried to re-assert itself and failed. It is the result of that massive spiritual battle that has propelled Hitler into being equated by the modern world with the Devil, not necessarily the Holocaust itself. This partially explains why the genocide of the Boers12, the Armenian Genocide13, the Holodomor14, Stalin and Mao’s murders of tens of millions of their own citizens, the Allied bombing of Dresden and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t have the same emotional or spiritual impact in the West — it is not tied to a two millennia old spiritual battle.
And the result of that supercharged, lopsided equality energy - utterly imbalanced and vigorously reinvigorated by a failed challenge to its rule - are spiraling humanity toward a terrible fate. Is it too much ask to live in a society where society’s equality and warrior impulses are in balance? Looking at the arc of human history, perhaps the fate of humankind is simply to fall victim to one fraudulent meta-narrative scam after another, with NPCs and sociopathic liberals leading the way toward increased centralization and decreased privacy and autonomy, destroying their enemies and anyone who speaks truth to power, a “leveling down” of man’s spirit to the lowest common denominator, forever, as we rapidly drain the world’s declining natural resources with billions of dumb, obese, cattle-like herd-humans, the rate of animal extinctions skyrockets and pollution, trash and micro-plastics disfigure the natural world, leaving a trash heap world of despair for future generations.
It almost feels as though there is some malevolent, creative, intelligent, devious, cynical, hidden — but awake and manifesting — spiritual entity animating and influencing the thoughts and behavior of our sociopathic liberal overlords, where they draw creative energy from this source, and that the God of goodness and light is non-interventionist or much weaker than the other force. This idea matches up well with the Gnostic Christian conception (and later by the Cathars) of the Demiurge, which is a deeply evil, malevolent entity which created and maintains all of material reality; and that the Demiurge wants to keep souls trapped in physical bodies, imprisoned in the material universe to be tortured and manipulated forever (unless he betrays his sociopathic liberal worshippers at the end and destroys humanity entirely; a likely bet). It would certainly explain the extreme, unrelenting evil in the world, and the fact that everything alive survives by subsisting on other alive substances - a concept made from nightmares.
***
This concludes Section 5, “Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks.” Section 6, “Suggestions and Takeaways”, will briefly look at major countries popularly perceived as resistant to our globalized system and then offer some takeaways and some reasons for hope.
MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, 27-28.
Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, 16-17.
The capitalist machine serves as the medium which converts difficult to quantify things such as community, trust, positive values, spontaneity, nature — basically the things that make life worth living — into egalitarian flat dystopia. As William S. Burroughs said, "What does the money machine eat? It eats youth, spontaneity, life, beauty, and, above all, it eats creativity. It eats quality and shits quantity."
Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, 31-37.
Samuel, 114.
The rise of reform/secular Judaism in the 20th century has magnified rather than diminished these fundamentally different outlooks. While religious Jews in the modern era are generally inward/community focused, many secular Jews, possessing of a surface-level integration into majority society which harm their community ties, hyper-focus on white Christians, obsessing about them constantly and driven by a bloodlust that can best be classified as genocidal and only slightly hidden. There are multi-faceted and debatable reasons for this.
Edward J. Watts, The Final Pagan Generation, 6.
See Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 226: “[Romulus’s] name was eponymous (essentially an early form of the word Roman), and his story was meant to exemplify ideal Roman aspirations and values, using a model similar to Greek tragedy, in which the hero sins in various ways but comes to self-understanding and achieves peace by the time of his death. He otherwise exhibits in his deeds the ‘exemplary qualities’ of Rome as a social entity, held up as a model for Roman leaders to emulate, such as ending ‘the cycle of violence’ initiated by his sin and pride by religiously expiating the sin of past national crimes in order to bring about a lasting peace.”
Although Irving controversially questions Hitler's personal knowledge about it given the lack of supporting documentation or any formal orders, although Hitler's general antipathy toward the Jews is expressed strongly on p. 580.
Tom Holland discusses this key insight in this clip:
Per Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, p. 115: “You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
Not even officially recognized in America until 2021.
An anecdote in Robert Conquest’s Reflections on a Ravaged Century, p. 122-123, demonstrates how the western establishment deliberately minimized the devastation of the Holodomor:
“The conflict between Soviet reality and Western perceptions had become acute in 1933. As we have seen, the Soviet official line was that no famine had taken place. Spokesmen from President Kalinin down called reports to the contrary inventions by emigre or fascist circles, or by Western bourgeois attempting to divert their workers’ attention from their own miserable life. But the Soviet line was supported by a whole range of Western correspondents and other observers in the USSR. The most influential was New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty (who seems to have been blackmailed on sexual grounds by the secret police).
Duranty personally told Eugene Lyons and others that he estimated the famine victims at around 7 million. An even clearer proof of the discrepancy between what he knew and what he reported is to be found in the dispatch of 30 September 1933 from the British charge d’affaires in Moscow: ‘According to Mr Duranty the population of the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga had decreased in the past year by three million, and the population of the Ukraine by four to five million. The Ukraine had been bled white….Mr Duranty thinks it quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year.”
What the American public got was not this straight stuff but the conclusion that ‘any report of famine’ was ‘exaggeration or malignant propaganda.’ The influence of his false reporting was enormous and long-lasting.
Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize for ‘dispassionate, interpretive reporting of the news from Russia.’ The announcement of the prize added that Duranty’s dispatches were ‘marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment, and exceptional clarity,’ being ‘excellent examples of the best type of foreign correspondence.’ The Nation, in citing the New York Times and Walter Duranty in its annual ‘honor roll,’ described his as ‘the most enlightening, dispassionate and readable dispatches from a great nation in the making which appeared in any newspaper in the world.’
At a banquet at the Waldorf Astoria to celebrate the recognition of the USSR by the United States, a list of names was read, each politely applauded by the guests until Walter Duranty’s was reached; then, Alexander Woollcott wrote in The New Yorker, ‘the only really prolonged pandemonium was evoked…Indeed, one got the impression that America, in a spasm of discernment, was recognizing both Russia and Walter Duranty.’”
Wow, there's quite a lot to digest here! As a Jew, I don't feel comfortable "liking" the post, per se, but I do think you're confronting some important issues that really should be discussed more openly than they are.
I hesitate to argue the established facts of the Holocaust, as I'm well aware that most such conversations turn into an endless rabbit hole. Nevertheless, I will point out that the assertion that a European population of ten million Jews would dwindle to less than two million by 1938 largely as a result of outmigration utterly fails to take into account the strict restrictions that virtually all countries had on Jewish immigration. As an example, in 1939, the MS St. Louis, with its 900 Jewish passengers seeking refuge from Europe, was turned away by multiple countries, including the USA. If 900 Jews couldn't find safe harbor anywhere in the world in 1939, it's absurd to suggest that millions of them would have been absorbed without comment by the nations of the world in the preceding years.
Setting that aside, I find your doctrinal exploration quite fascinating. I think it's worth noting that BOTH mainstream Christianity and Judaism have been largely hijacked by what you call Spiritual Bolshevists. Regrettably, the message that the Left is the ideology of caring, intelligent people has been effectively marketed to American Jewry, which - quite contrary to its own interests - supports exactly the policies that have led to a skyrocketing incidents of virulent anti-Semitism, particularly on college campuses. While there are plenty of anti-Communist Jews (former Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate Spike Cohen is a good example), we are, at least for now, in the minority.
Along the same lines, it's relatively easy to cherry-pick statements, such as the one you found, that reflect a somewhat aggressive approach to ethnic separatism from the Jewish perspective. To me, this smacks of "reactive abuse," which is a phenomenon in which an abuser finally provokes a violent reaction from the person they've been abusing, and then use that reaction as "evidence" that their victim is crazy and/or the perpetrator in the situation. In this case, following the collective trauma of the Holocaust, it might be understandable why some Jewish thinkers would feel that assimilation was a mistake, and that perhaps it would be best to acknowledge deep-seated cultural differences that might cause tension in future.
By and large, I think you and I have a lot of common ground regarding the symptoms of our very sick and dysfunctional culture. I don't know if we would ever agree on what the underlying diseases are, but I look forward to reading more of your work.
This essay (part) is an opus I'd like to reread a few times.
I wish I had interacted with its contents years ago, but alas, life is lived and better late than never.
My long winded way to say "thank you".