The Beginning of the West [1, 1 ed.]

Citation preview

Anti-Nihilism

The Beginning of the Wes Understanding the Paradox of Modernit

y

t

1

2

“Repentance is return; redemption is restoration. A perfect beginning—the faithful city—is followed by defection, decline, sin; and this is followed by a perfect end. But the perfect end is the restoration of the perfect beginning: the faithful city at the beginning and at the end. - Leo Straus

”

s

3

4

Table of Content Introduction..................................................................................................................................... Chapter One: “Progress”............................................................................................................................1 Chapter Two: The Era of the Individual..................................................................................................5 Chapter Three Faith and Reason...............................................................................................................7 Chapter Four: The Beginning...................................................................................................................9 Chapter Five: Novus Inversionem Seclorum The New Beginning..............................................................................................11 Chapter Six: Head to Tail..........................................................................................................................13 Chapter Seven: Restoration.......................................................................................................................19 Chapter Eight: Zionism and Globalism...................................................................................................21 Epilogue Anti-Nihilism...................................................................................................................23 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................24

8

2

2

0

8

8

0

0

2

6

8



s

:



5

6

Introductio

n

7

In my short life I have served many causes but above all what has captured my energies and enthusiasm has been the cause of truth. As someone who grew up in two separate worlds, one modern and the other making the transition into modernity, the existential question of my being was fated to be the Question of Modernity. This book is a project into modernity, a project into Nihilism, as that is what I have come to realize modernity truly is. I’ve sacri ced what I can only consider as my self to dedicate my whole being to the construction of this book, and, to be sure, living a life of sacri ce has come to me to mean Anti-Nihilism

As a youth, I heard the parable “turtles all the way down,” and only a decade later did I realize that my life has hitherto been nothing but a refutation of the saying. In accordance with my socially existential life, my mind has always sought answers in the disharmony I noticed all around me, asking questions of things that others would say are unexplainable, the greatest of which are the most internal of questions. I’ve always searched for turtles where others have seen reality, and this book is a search for that which is under all turtles, that which is the base of all things, that nal and rst turtle that possess all answers: that is the answer. I suppose in many ways, this’s what humans have always done, searching for reasons in a world of mystery, chaos, and uncertainty. As children, we seek that which is behind things, that which under them, within them — eternally asking “Why?” To be an adult is to not only stop asking this question, but to chastise those who do: adulthood is the betrayal of childhood. Adulthood in the modern world strips the most fundamental quality of youth from man, curiosity, and turns him into an unthinking and reactionary husk. The modern adult does not ask why, does not question reality, does not create; the modern adult

fi

fi

fi

.

fi

8

simply accepts reality for what it is and, thus, only reacts to it. He is like a blind man feeling his way around the world, who has purposefully put a blindfold over his own eyes, who can only interact with that which he can touch or that which he hears. Never does he believe his own vision, his own voice: only the visions and voices of others. Today, the modern man and woman think youth can only be found in appearance, and this is a further consequence of the fact that they only believe in appearances. Such people are the easiest to be fooled by illusions, and modernity is the greatest illusion to exist: an illusion of man’s own design. What is youth? There is an answer, but it is one that cannot be spoken. It is an answer that must be found, and the goal of this book is to lead you back to it. To lead you back to yourself.

9

10

Chapter On “Progress

e

”

11

upon? What is the fundamental element of our foundation? Do our eyes possess the vision to look that far down, to travel that far down? Constantly, it is said that the only direction worth traveling is up, but reality is a contradiction, and before one can go up, one must go down. To reach the ending of a thing, one must return to its beginning..

You might think that going up is a simple endeavor, that one simply has to crane their neck upward and start climbing, but the world of turtles has no gravity. Up is not the direction that you crane you head up to, nor is down what is below your feet. You could have been ipped every which way before now and your up could just as we be down. One might assume that man has been traveling upwards to the sky all this time, when in reality, he may have just been hurtling towards the abyss, the weightless feeling of falling itself taken as ight: the feeling of inertia mistaken for the absence of gravity. The answer is simple then; up is either something that is non-existent, a post-modern perspective (all directions are up!), or, we can only be certain of up once we have returned to our original position. Up is that which was up before we were ipped, before we were inverted every which way. The process of uncovering this origin is the process of discovering every point of in ection in human history — every point at which we were turned and ipped, every moment of inversion. Some say history must be studied objectively, but objectivity is nonexistence. Others go so far as to say, “History has no meaning,” but this is simply a shallow attempt to attribute to history their own meaning. History can only be understood as a series of inversions, and as such, the study of history is simply the exploration of its events to discover every point of inversion,

fl

fl

.

fl

ll

fl

12

fl

1

2

The turtle at the bottom, that is what we are searching for. What is it that which we stand

mankind.

A map is useless without indication of one’s current location, so let us cast our gaze to modernity. To understand the modern day, one must understand its perspective of up. What does the so called “peak” of mankind, the Western world, believe it is climbing towards? What do the inhabitants of the “free” and “democratic” societies believe the direction for mankind should be? Certainly, there are divisions among the people themselves, but what is the discreet and underlying direction modernity has thus far taken? What is the invisible path we have walked hitherto? If modernity is a ship, in what direction do the winds blow? If it is an angel, in what direction does the storm take it?1 If it is an arrow, in what direction was it shot? What is it that we believe we are stepping towards

Amidst the con icts of individuals, parties, ideologies, and nations, we are said to have moved forward in one direction for centuries, and that direction is subtly titled “Progress”. As Nietzsche said, “Let us not be deceived! Time marches forward; we'd like to believe that everything that is in it also marches forward— that the development is one that moves forward. The most level-headed are led astray by this illusion.”2 Nietzsche’s doubt of mankind’s progress is notable. Upon what parameter is man sure he is moving forward? Certainly time marches forward, although in a relative fashion, but can we be certain that our movement is forward? That our movement is even good? What is meant 1 2

Theses on the Philosophy of History by Walter Benjamin The Wi to Power

?



fl

13

ll

3

4

constantly searching until the First Inversion is found. At that moment gravity is restored to

Enlightenment, Western mankind believes that we are on a journey with an end, that we walk a universal path, that there is goal for history, a destination for mankind. Since the dawn of the Enlightenment, this culturally ego-centric historicity has dominated the minds of “rational” thinkers and relegated any thought that isn’t decidedly Western to an order of insigni cance. The past is inferior and the future is superior, and we, the “enlightened” minds of the present, have the duty of ensuring that the future never becomes the past: “Never Again!” History is linear, the modern man has only two choices: forward and backward,“Progress or Return.” Progress is that which we seek, that which we aim towards, that which we wish to actualize, our goal, the Kingdom at the end of time, and this notion of progress is entirely political; it is the answer to the question of the “best”/“perfect” structure of society. As such, progress, ideologically, is entirely interested in transforming the political realm, which, for a society only informed by the political, a society whose culture is political/ material, then transforms all other realms. Imagine a society as the body of a human, and politics as the brain: whatever controls it controls the entire thing. Progress is the directive of the modern mind, a mind divorced from its spirit and existent solely in the material world.

To the Western mind progress is a political and ideological term denoting some form of “just” socio-political advancement for mankind and the inferiority of the past is increasingly vocal within his collective unconsciousness. That is, in the concept of progress, the past must be presented as inferior to not only the present, which has been enlightened by its understanding of a universal direction for mankind, but also the future: the perspective of

fi

14



5

by forward, and what is its conceptual origin? Seemingly spurned by the engine of the

progress necessarily requires the belief that the future is eterna y superior. The “eternal” superiority of the future seemingly nds its temporal origin with the Enlightenment, a period in which man divorced himself from the metaphysical foundation of God to stand upon his own foundation: the foundation of Rationality. It was in this age that man felt that the greatest shackle of the past, that which had hitherto hindered all attempts at “progress,” was cut o from him and began his transformation from a spiritual creature to a material creature. It was only with the abandonment of God through the use of the tool of rationality that thinkers could discern a material “destination” for mankind, a path to walk, a meaning for progress. We are reminded of Charlie Chaplin’s Final Speech “Let us ght for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness”3 Happiness, he says... In the era of psychology, who among mankind knows the meaning of such a word? What a trite term, slung around as if man is in complete certainty about its de nition: in searching for happiness, man wanders a maze with no exit, a maze of his own design. In the free and independent world, man is enslaved and dependent on this notion of happiness: in obeying, he becomes less free. This is what is meant by “Modernity.” Progress “towards happiness,” however, has its roots far earlier in the history of the West: verily, there is nothing, aside from God, that exists independently of all other things. Today, the word is attached to political slogans, plastered on college campuses, the themes of lms and shows, and made into symbols and ags — verily, progress itself has become a word intertwined with the colors of the rainbow. Like Empedocles heading towards the volcano, modern man follows the rainbow to its origin. Progress, like society, is an organic notion. As Spengler put

3

charliechaplin.com

fi

:

ll

fi

fl

fi

ff

fi

15

into civilizations, and eventually succumb to degeneration and decline. Plato held similar beliefs, emphasizing the organic nature of society and its connection to justice in the natural world5. In order to know the end of a society, one must return to its beginning — it shall die in accordance to the characteristics with which it was born: its end is a return to its beginning. Destiny does not mean causality, but necessity - Fermat’s principle of least time holds for societies as well. Progress in the modern world is the progression of that which it believes above all. It is our most fundamental value, the value we constructed ourselves upon, the value we have intertwined with God - the value we have replaced as God: ideolatry. The beginning thesis of this book is that “progress” can only be understood as the pursuit of equality through the abolishment of authority, the pursuit that transiently has the goal not of placing a men on equal footing, but placing man and God on equal footing.

Most Westerners believe the value of equality is self-evident, that it is valuable in itself, that there is no need to question it, but this is because they have been conditioned for decades to believe as such. The consumerist and materialist world we live has developed into a selfregulating and self-conditioning illusion that molds every psyche that crosses unwittingly across its borders without restraint or mercy — a reality where illusion is more real than reality. All who live in the modern world eventua y become modern... Liberal democracy itself is only possible through a system of mindless consumerism “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those 4 5

The Decline of the West Republic

fl

:

ll

16

ll

6

it, civilizations are organic entities with distinct phases.4 They begin as cultures, ourish

who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” (Edward Bernays, Propaganda The goal of democracy, government by all, is not only missed, but man is directed in the opposite direction. Bernays, the cousin of the “great” psychoanalyst Freud, need not convince you of this truth of mindless consumerism: observation of the behavior of the masses around you can su ce. Every generation is raised further divorced from the prior, and, with the proliferation of mass media, the method of ideological insemination has only become increasingly potent. The nature from which man developed his reason, his conception of progress, are lost in time, and all that remains are the symbols of media: the nurturing of a new nature. Question the average modern person and they are unable to answer why they believe what they believe. The “self-evident superiority” of modern values is used as a hollow shell of sentimentality to disguise the ideological modi cation and nulli cation of the nature of man, and people believe not words imparted from God, revelation, but the echoes of the “reason” of men who did not even understand the true nature of reason: the words of men treated as the Word, words that replaced with new words every decade. The value of

fi

fi

)

ffi

17

mechanisms” of society, though, the term “unseen” is improper. The pursuit of progress and the complete establishment of equality are anything but discreet or secretive. This goal of progress, of full material actualization of equality is clear as day to those who use their senses to think rather than to consume, who live in reality rather than in illusion. In a world of blind people, those with vision are considered blind..

What does “belief ” mean? What is faith? People like to say that the Western world is godless, that it doesn’t believe in anything, that it has no faith in anything, that the Enlightenment was the moment in which the moral anchor of God was nally cast o from the ship of mankind, but this is because they still associate God with an entity of total control, a man in the sky (many have qualms with simply the “man” part of God, crying that “God is a woman!”, a belief that is plastered on posters and sewed on clothing). At the basest layer, God is that which is believed but cannot be proven. God is that which we put our faith into, that which we make self-evident but can never prove to be truly evident. God is simply what man has faith in. If God was provable, what use is faith? The modern man is the most monotheistic believer: the ultimate monotheist. He has made God into one thing, one value: the value of equality: the value of the individual. He has made the Individual into God...

This is what the modern man believes in above all, what he centers his conditioned conscience upon, what he has made the magnet of his broken compass. In all realms of Western life, this idea proliferates everywhere and watches all. It has become the female God of the modern world. In the workforce, education, politics, and religion: in all man-made

ff

fi

fi

18

.

7

8

equality stands as a colossal matter of ideological signi cance for these “unseen

dominate the non man-made institutions, the natural institutions: family, sexuality, gender, health, biology, leading to the only possible conclusion of an institution inverted by the individual: self-destruction. Some look at the events of the modern day and are shocked, confused, asking themselves how it is that they got here, but this disorientation is a consequence of their ignorance of the values underpinning Western society, values that can only gradually reach physical actualization through a generational process of conditioning. What man believes is self-evident today, he had to construct yesterday...Verily, what we are seeing today among men, women, and the new class of “others” is merely ongoing achievement of consistency with the idea of equality that we believe in above all, the idea of equality that has constructed our very nation and the West at large itself . This is a result of the ideas that provided us our own liberation, the ideas we are now enslaved to. There is nothing to restrain these ideas, no God to put boundaries upon them, for they themselves have been condensed into the modern God and are the basis of a new Covenant/Constitution. The goal of modernity, “Progress,” is a world of equality. It is Individualism truly actualized. To know the end of a society, one only needs to return to its beginning

The Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness Where does this common sense about equality come from? John Adams wrote in a letter to Benjamin Franklin in 1805:

.

:

”

19



9



institutions, equality dominates: the individual dominates. Slowly, it begins to even

“Without the pen of the author of 'Common Sense,' the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain. When was it that the word “natural” was thrown in with freedom? Freedom, does anyone truly understand what is meant by such a word? Certainly it sounds nice to the modern ear, a word covered in sugar and honey, echoed in every lm and made the moral of every modern fable, but is such a thing natural? Rousseau would have us believe as such “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains It is almost as if he has never witnessed the birth of a child and its state of absolute dependence. If it is Thomas Paine’s common sense that has informed our own, what informed Thomas Paine of his common sense, his “happiness for independence?” The modern man tends to believe everything is a product of nurture, that individuals are not a result of anything but their environment, proceeding from the ideas of Locke, but this belief they apply selectively. If it is true that man is a product of his nurture, then can any nurturist make a logical claim to natural anything, let alone natural rights? How is it then that the loudest voices advocating for natural rights are from those who have abandoned a belief in God? Is it the case that a man only comes to believe certain things are natural as a result of his nurturing, or, is it his nature to confuse things as the product of nurturing? Does man’s mind possess a fatalistic and paradoxical natural process...or is it just the environment that conditions us to think as such? Frankly, the point is irrelevant, it has no end, but Paine’s ideas do have a beginning, just as all ideas do. As Nietzsche said, “Nothing is self-su cient, neither in us ourselves nor in things.”6 1

6

The Gay Science

ffi

:

ll

”

fi

”

0

20

The shadows of the founding fathers were cast by the light of a selection of Enlightenment thinkers that departed from the traditional religious attachment to a political structure grounded in divinity and monarchy and “progressed” towards laws, structures, and social contracts supposedly divorced from nature and rooted in the “universal” language of “reason.” The brightest of these was John Locke, and his Second Treatise of Government is the supposed foundation for the American value system. It was John Locke who rst wrote that all men have the right to pursue “Life, Liberty, and Property,” “property” being replaced with the “pursuit of happiness” by Thomas Je erson, likely an alteration made with the writings of Thomas Paine in mind: “Whatever the form or constitution of government may be, it ought to have no other object than the general happiness. When, instead of this, it operates to create and increase wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary. Further quotes from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government making clear the characteristics of liberal Individualism “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” “To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think t, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” This claim crumbles under the weight of its sheer untenability: no man has ever existed in a a state of “perfect freedom.” Where does this belief that man is naturally born free come



fi

fi

ff

:





”

21

from? Would Locke have us believe that man was once God, bound not even by the laws of nature? Or gods in the Greek sense, bound only by the laws of nature? A point of paramount importance: the departure from monarchy is made upon the assertion of the ideology of Individualism which can be de ned in a three-pronged manner: equality, freedom, independence “Hence it is evident, that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil-government at all “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The in uence of Locke and Paine on the founding fathers and origin of the nation of America as a liberal democracy is common knowledge, but it is not clear that the system of democracy, of liberal Individualism, is good as such — is common sense. The following quote displays the fundamental pillar of these “self-evident” ideas “...tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. Liberal Individualism is established as the “universal" political ideology in response to the disdain towards tyranny and external authority. That is, the basis for the belief in the “selfevident” “natural” rights of equality, and this is the principle point, is rooted in a rejection of authority. Benjamin Franklin wanted the seal of America to read, “Rebellion to Tyrants is

:

”

fi

”

”

:

fl

22

Obedience to God.”7 Why is it that the modern man has reoriented his dictionary from the perspective of words such as “tyranny,” “authoritarianism," “totalitarianism," “freedom,” “liberation,” “independence,” and, most notably, “oppression?" The future is constructed and then deemed superior purely upon the basis of injustices felt from the past. The root idea of freedom and equality, of liberal Individualism, is this desire for the construction of the citizen, the individual who is subject to no external authority except through his own consent: the man whose path of progress leads only towards godhood. But for the man who lives in a world where everything is manufactured, what use is his consent?8 1 America is founded by these ideas, its identity as a nation of separate but United States, separate but United Individuals, is fundamentally a result of these ideas. Its revolution was fueled by a desire for independence and freedom, a desire to cast o the chain of the external authority of the monarchy, and this desire is the basis for modern liberal Individualism, the ideology that makes up the foundation of all Western societies. What else can democracy be considered but the de-facto and logically natural political structure of Individualism, the very political articulation of Individualism? To frame the origin of liberal Individualism another way, consider that the American revolution was an inversion of structure/society. The political structure of the monarchy in Britain resembles a pyramid of value/authority with the monarch at the peak with ultimate value and absolute authority, and all others cascading downwards in greater and greater numbers with less value and authority: inequality, the great evil, is determined through an order of authority. The base of the pyramid is its largest part, and in it are all the completely valueless, the ones with no 7 8

Exodus_SL Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky

ff

1

23

authority: the commoners/slaves. Individuals who are simply means to an end. The American revolution is an inversion of this pyramid, a reversal of the valuations of people within the pyramid as a product of vindication for prior injustices through the injurious use of authority. The monarch (the sole ruler), that which was most valuable and subject to the authority of none, is made valueless, and the commoner, the one who is subject to the other authority of others, is made to be of in nite value, endowed with natural rights that prevent the tyranny of any and all authority. Man is made an end in himself. The Patriarch, the Father, is felled by the child. The monarch is destroyed, Collectivism/holism is destroyed, and Individualism is constructed, the citizen is constructed, and the very idea of equality, the idea that liberated man om the injustices of tyranny, is made into that which is divine, that which has absolute authority over a ... As long as the modern man obeys this core commandment of the modern god of equality, he will remain the head and not the tail, he will remain the top and not the bottom. But if he disobeys, if he does not observe faithfully these laws of equality, then he will be punished for his disobedience to modern god. 1 The fundamental basis of the America revolution is the desire to liberate oneself om external authority, a desire born from the belief of the individual as valuable in itself. Put in another way, it is the desire to make the individual his own master, his own god, where he is subject to no authority but his own. The inversion is the abstract usurping of the Father by the child, and from this, obedience towards authority, God, the Father, is abandoned, replaced by a political ideology that is worshipped in His place: ideolatry. “Everything will it give you, if ye worship it, the new idol” (Thus Spake Zarathustra Such is what is meant by the end of times:

)

fr





fi

l

fr

2

24

“But realize this, that in the last days di cult times will come. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, slanderers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:1-4 The worship of pleasure can be understood as nothing more than the worship of self: the end of times is the time when the Individual reigns in the place of God. This antagonism towards authority itself that has become the moral compass of the modern man, the divine law of the modern man, the god he worships: all that liberates and ensures freedom is good and all that denies it is evil. In other words, oppression and authority are evil and liberation and freedom are good: Hell is a totalitarian pyramid and Heaven is the at garden of freedom and equality... Though, it is even deeper than that: anything that reminds the modern man of his past, of the tribalism of Collectivism, the inequality of nature, the natural order, is evil. Any man who shows any indication that his beliefs seem not to align with those of equality is slowly and gradually censored and eradicated from the gene pool of ideas. This sheds a new light upon the disdain for any leader or individual that possesses a shred of nationalistic, ethnic, religious, or cultural pride — to put any value in these relics of the past is to deny the god of equality and remind mankind of the greatest evil: authority. “Never Again!" Belief and pride in culture, religion, race, and nationality are evil, and the only culture, religion, race, or nationality one can have pride in is the A -culture, A -religion, A race, and A -nationality, the Rainbow culture, religion, race and nationality: the rainbow ag is the ag of the future... Some insight into how a movement that advocates love and

ll

fl

ll

fl

ll

ffi

)

ll

fl

25

tolerance for all can be so hateful and intolerant: the advocates of the “open society” are the most close minded... 1 These ideas imprinted within our constitution are gathered from the beliefs of Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Kant, Rousseau, and others, taken by the Founding Fathers, and made into foundational pillars of American, and eventually Western, society...but those who think that these values are purely the result of “enlightened” rationality do not understand the distinction between faith and reason. The modern man is not godless nor without morality: his morality is solely rooted in the ideology that has given him the freedom to be godless and without morality. Namely, man is obedient to the idea of Individualism that is itself taken to be God... This is one of the many paradoxes that underpin modern Individualism: man is enslaved to the idea of freedom 1 To understand this speci c paradox throughly we must ask what is truly meant by ‘equality’: it is an inversion of what has always been — inequality: Plato’s justice, the natural order, the natural hierarchy, where the whole is valued over the parts, the collective over the individual. Equality means the exact opposite: that the co ective is worthless and the individual is of ultimate worth; that all people are individuals and are granted the same rights that cannot be infringed upon by any other individual or external authority. Individualism is three-pronged: freedom, independence, and equality for all: one is independent, free from all outside tyrannical in uences, only if all are given equal independence and freedom. But there is a glaring paradox: the once enslaved man that has been liberated from his slavery is not actually free. He is now enslaved to that which has eed him. And let us say that he is liberated

.

fr

ll

fi

fl

3

4

26

from that which freed him from his prior enslavement...now he is enslaved to that new authority which has given him his liberation: slavery ad in nitum. “Don’t you know that when you o er yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:17 The same is true of independence — a man is constantly dependent on that which provides him his independence — and equality — a man is equal to all other men as long as the idea that all men are equal is superior to all other ideas: the paradox of self-su ciency/freedom/ independence/equality. What is the modern man enslaved to, dependent upon, obedient to, that provides him his so called freedom and independence? These very ideas themselves. The idea of equality that has liberated him from the tyranny of monarchy. The freedom, equality, and independence the Western man enjoys only exists insofar as he is enslaved to the ideological value system that has given him his eedom, equality, and independence, and he is the most dedicated of slaves to his master. The enlightened mind has always been enslaved to this idea of freedom — it has been the basis upon which he has conducted all political philosophy: it is the abstract idea that constantly consumes itself in order to achieve further consistency. The question of “right” is the question of freedom, but this is incorrect. The question of right, and even freedom, has always been the question of Authority. Man will always be obedient to some authority, and the pursuit of pure freedom can only mean the pursuit of godhood. However, only God is free, and man can only nd freedom in nonexistence. The Buddhists, in this sense, are far ahead of the West, but they seek internal nonexistence whereas the West seeks co ective nonexistence. 1

ffi

fi



fi

)

fr

ll

ff

5

27

To repeat myself, the Western world is not amoral or Godless: Individualism is its God/ Satan, and the three prongs of its trident are freedom, independence, and equality. Only that which a rms freedom, independence, and equality are good, and all things that deny them are evil. This belief it obtains through inverting the political structure of society from Collectivism to Individualism: Individualism itself made the connotation of the word progress and the god of the West that everyone obeys. This realization makes clear to the discerning mind the exact reason for the more incredulous and psychotic behavior of individuals within the West and the proliferation of relativity of morality and reality, “My truth”: the explicit assertion of Individualism.The founding of modern Individualism is politically rooted in freeing oneself from an external institution of authority: authority is evil. This is the belief that fuels the mindset of the modern man, and life is spent enslaved to the material lies that promise him freedom: life is spent as a paradox. The truth is that duty is the sole thing that ees, burden is the sole thing that lightens, and stru le is the sole thing that satis es. Man can only be free when he is in bondage. 1 Progress then, as a political value in the Western world, can be summarized as the pursuit of Individualism, Individualism being the foundational ideology that freed America from the authority of the British monarchy and imprinted within the Western mind an aversion towards a authority. To be simplistic, this ideology can be physically represented through the Rainbow ag, the ag of the Individual. The pursuit of Individualism is the pursuit of Godhood, of making the individual himself into God. In collectivist societies, the gods were representations of the collective itself, the collective being of ultimate value, this idea echoed throughout time and most notably in Hegel’s philosophy of Right. To state it

fi

gg



fl

fr

fl

l

ffi

6

28

inverts this structure by giving ultimate value to the individual, by making the individual into God. If in the collectivist structure, the collective is superior to the individual, in the individualistic structure, every individual is superior to the co ective: every individual is superior to God. If a society is to actualize Individualism, it must grant to a its inhabitants freedom, independence, and equality in order to refrain from falling into contradiction. It must make a into God. The word progress denotes the path towards this goal, the further achievement of consistency with this founding values, and the Western journey towards self-destruction 1 There are immediate complaints that the Western world has largely been in contradiction regarding this value system for much of its history, and although this is true, it is not a consequence of its founding ideology, but rather, as Francis Fukuyama notes in his book The End of History and the Last Man, the lack of consistency regarding its implementation “This was not to say that today's stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland, were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy is founded, rather than of aws in the principles themselves. The history of America is that of progress, that of achieving further and further consistency with its founding principles, and in order to measure how far it has come, one only needs to note the number of rainbow ags raised on the agpoles. To be nationalistic is to retain elements of the tribal and primitive past of inequality, of authority, of Collectivism. The past is inferior to the future. In order for the world to be truly equal, we must all be united by one ag: we must all be in one society, the Open society...

.

”

:

l

ll

fl

fl

fl

ll

29

7

fl

directly, Collectivism is the ideology that treats the collective itself as God. Individualism

1 Karl Popper's magnum opus, The Open Society and Its Enemies, is an exploration of the ideological and philosophical underpinnings of Individualism within the context of political theory and society. Published in 1945, the work is a defense of Individualism as the cornerstone of an “open” and “free” society. Within it, the distinctions between an “Open” and “Closed” society are elucidated, with a Closed society being characterized as the more primitive social structure born from the tribalism of early civilizations, and an Open as the modern “universal” goal, the culmination of human reasoning and intellect “This Individualism, united with altruism9, has become the basis of our western civilization...There is no other thought which has been so powerful in the moral development of man. “But if we wish to remain human, then there is only one way, the way into the open society. We must go on into the unknown, courageously, using what reason we have, to plan for security and freedom. “The new faith10 of the open society, the faith in man, in equalitarian justice, and in human reason In advocating for the Open society in contrast to the Closed, Popper makes the distinction between two forms of justice: Platonic and modern “We mean by justice some kind of equality in the treatment of individuals, while Plato considers justice not as a relationship between individuals, but as a property of the whole state, based upon a relationship between its classes.

How can individualism be united with altruism? How can the belief that the individual is the most valuable be reconciled with the belief that the individual should self-sacri ce for others, therefore acting as if there are things more valuable then himself ? They cannot be, and that is the truth of the proliferation of sel shness and greed in Western society. 10 The Open society itself as god, that which man puts faith into. 9

:

”

:

”

fi

fi

”

”

8

30

It is Popper’s claim that Plato’s promotion of justice is actually a disguised method of pushing his own “totalitarian” agenda “Why did Plato claim, in the Republic, that justice meant inequality if in general usage, it meant equality? To me the only likely reply seems to be that he wanted to make propaganda for his totalitarian state by persuading the people that it was the ‘just’ state. Repeatedly the claim is made and rea rmed that Plato and his social framework are rooted in an antagonism towards equality, “justice,” and Individualism “Equalitarianism was his arch-enemy “Platonic totalitarianism “...the individual is to Plato the Evil One himself. The abstract claim is that Plato’s justice is an adherence to the natural order, to Collectivism and holism, “Totalitarianism,” a social structure in which the parts operate in duty towards the whole, the whole being of ultimate value: the whole being God “Men must be taught that justice is inequality, and that the tribe, the collective, stands higher than the individual. “I legislate with a view to what is best for the whole state,’ says Plato, ‘...for I justly place the interests of the individual on an inferior level of value. Popper views this as an evil and outdated method of existence, a structure of society that denies humans their most basic right: recognition of themselves as individuals, as valuable in themselves, a belief he attributes in part to Kant, but also to the “Great Generation” of Greeks. Of course, in inverting the collective as God, Popper aims to make the individual god. Popper makes the distinction between an Open and Closed society as such; a Closed society operates under the boundary of some divine absolute and gives ultimate value to the

”

”

:

:

”

”

:

ffi

”

”

31

collective and denial of entry to others upon some parameter, whereas an Open apparently has no such boundary or absolute and imparts ultimate value to a individuals. That is, the social ideology of Individualism can only operate successfully and without contradiction if all are given the same rights and authority — if all are made into individuals. This distinction between Individualism and Collectivism is pivotal; Popper claims that the step towards an Open Society is one that is done in a direction forward, that the Open society itself is progress, but that is not true. Popper commits the same error as the entire cohort of progress Pharisees in the West: cultural ego-centricity. He views Western culture itself is the focus of all history, that it itself is the furthest along the linear path that all of mankind is supposedly walking, and I suppose this can be considered true as the destination of this path is the abyss itself. 1 What is the importance of Popper’s book? Why do I bring it up as a relevant piece of foundational literature? It is my contention that what is described as “the Open society” within the book can be considered the transient goal of globalist modernity rooted in rationality, the destination of progress: full actualization of liberal democracy, Individualism, in every corner of the Earth. Earlier, I posited Individualism as the foundation of Western society and progress as the path towards its actualization, but the Open society is merely the term for a society that has reached complete political and social consistency with Individualism, a society that has replaced its ag with the rainbow. Karl Popper was the mentor of George Soros, a wealthy billionaire often cited as a bogey-man puppet-master controlling the world through the shadows — though, this is a foolish assessment. George Soros is not operating with any level of secrecy, his goal is clear and explicitly stated

l

fl



9

32

numerous times: the establishment of an Open society on Earth, only possible if a are open societies. He has written a book called In Defense of Open Society and he credits Popper numerous times as the main contributor towards his philanthropic mindset — that and his identity as a Jew during WW2. The most glaring evidence of this goal however is the establishment of a grant network that Soros has donated most his net worth towards, the foundation his son now runs: Open Society Foundations. The Foundation has an endowment of over $19 billion USD and its mission statement reads “The Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, are the world’s largest private funder of independent groups working for justice, democratic governance, and human rights. We approach this mission through the illuminating principles of justice, equity, and expression—de ning characteristics of any truly open society. Soros was instrumental in the fall of communism in the late 1980s and is a large agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum. At WEF 2022, Soros delivered a speech echoing the goals of the Western world for an Open society “The world has been increasingly engaged in a struggle between two systems of governance that are diametrically opposed to each other: open society and closed society. Let me de ne the di erence as simply as I can. In an open society, the role of the state is to protect the freedom of the individual; in a closed society the role of the individual is to serve the rulers of the state. “After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the tide began to turn against open societies. Repressive regimes are now in the ascendant and open societies are under siege. Today China and Russia present the greatest threat to open society.

ll

”

”

:

:

”

ff

fi

fi

33

In a 1993 essay titled “Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO,” Soros repeats this distinction between an Open and Closed society alongside what he believes should be the “architecture for a new world order” “To understand the current situation, I contend that it is very useful to draw a distinction between open and closed societies. The distinction is based on the same philosophical foundations as my theory of history, namely, that participants act on the basis of imperfect understanding. Open society is based on the recognition of this principle and closed society on its denial. In a closed society, there is an authority which is the dispenser of the ultimate truth; open society does not recognize such authority even if it recognizes the rule of law and the sovereignty of the state. The state is not based on a dogma and society is not dominated by the state. The government is elected by the people and it can be changed. Above all, there is respect for minorities and minority opinions. “Then we would have the beginnings of an architecture for a new world order. It is based on the United States as the remaining superpower and on open society as the organizing principle. George Soros is not some diabolical mastermind controlling the world from the darkness, but he is using his vast wealth and power to in uence the world in a certain ideological direction. This is clear with his philanthropy e orts, his role in the collapse of communism and the aftermath of Eastern Europe, his speeches and platforms at the World Economic Forum, and his vast collections of writing on the matter. It is no secret that he has a certain direction in mind for the planet — every individual with a certain level of mental sophistication can make judgements for or against certain things (only fools advocate for everything, that is, those who stand for everything stand for nothing)— it’s just that not

”

ff

fl

:

”

34

every individual has a large enough pool of resources and in uence to make his judgements known physically in reality. Soros is one such individual who is and has been attempting to weld the world’s value judgement positions into his own, and this he actively does through philanthropy and various other methods. What are his value judgements? That Individualism, the opposite of Collectivism, is the proper way forward, and a continuance of the legacy of his in uential mentor, Karl Popper. It's not some grand conspiracy that Soros desires the actualization of a complete Open Society on Earth which requires that all societies are open, hence his disdain for closed societies like Russia, China, and North Korea as well as nationalistic leaders such as Putin and Trump. The purpose of bringing up Soros is not to give credit to those who would like to paint the world as the puppet of a select group of puppet masters — undoubtedly, there are leaders and in uencers, pushers and changers, but this perspective fails to recognize the inability for any man or group of men to predict, to any signi cant degree, the state of a airs of the vast nexus of interactions and relations that is mankind, nor that rarely do the outcomes of action re ect their intent (a reiteration of Soros’ own theory of re exivity), or, more broadly stated, the inability for any man or group of men to act with the perfection of God, to act as God — rather, it is my aim to make clear the connotation of the word “progress” with the pursuit of a society founded in Individualism, to give a name to this destination of history, this Kingdom at the end of time: the Open society. The truth of the matter regarding the path a society takes is organic: its history is the continual maturity and actualization of that which de ned its birth: necessity rather than causality. The abstract towards which it continually hurtles toward, its death and end, is determined in the beginning, and its life is a return to that beginning..

fi

fl

fl

fl

ff

fl

fi

fl

.

35

2 To reiterate this claim, Francis Fukuyama and his work are signi cant. Fukuyama argues that the “end of history” has been ideologically reached by mankind: liberal democracy. He not only commits the same error of cultural egocentricity as Popper, but also fails to understand what is meant by historicism and political philosophy. His seminal work, The End of History and the Last Man, engages with the concept of Individualism within the broader context of political and philosophical discourse. Published in 1992, the book presents an argument that Individualism, as a core principle of liberal democracy, has emerged as the ultimate endpoint in the evolution of human political ideals, as the endpoint in a linear view of history. Fukuyama believes that liberal democracy, with its emphasis on individual freedom, human rights, and limited government, represents the culmination of humanity's ideological journey “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the nal form of human government. Fukuyama is of the belief that once mankind has become antiquated with the ideologies of Individualism, there is no “return” “The end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the nal form of human government is an ideological point of no return. Fukuyama tries to assert that linguistic, cultural, and ethnic groups are based on “arbitrary” distinctions that are less rational than the “universal" recognition of values such as equality

fi

”

fi

:

”

fi

:

0

36

through his use of a theory on “recognition” which asserts that human motivation can be traced to the recognition of worth by others. It is his belief that this “recognition” is the driving force of history, and that, hitherto, man has found his “recognition” in “irrational" places “A r ligious believer, for example, seeks recognition for his particular gods or sacred practices, while a nationalist demands recognition for his particular linguistic, cultural, or ethnic group. Both of these forms of recognition are less rational than the universal recogn tion of the liberal state, because they are based on arbitrary di tinctions between sacred and profane, or between human social groups. For this reason, religion, nationalism, and a people's co plex of ethical habits and customs (more broadly "culture") have traditionally been interpreted as obstacles to the establishment of successful democratic political institutions and free-market eco omies. But the truth is considerably more complicated, for the su cess of liberal politics and liberal economics frequently rests on irrational forms of recognition that liberalism was supposed to overcome. For democracy to work, citizens need to develop an irrational pride in their own democratic institutions, and must also develop what Tocqueville called the "art of associating," which rests on prideful attachment to small communities. These communities are frequently based on religion, ethnicity, or other forms of recognition that fall short of the universal recognition on which the liberal state is based. Fukuyama commits an egregious logical contradiction: he states that pride in nation, culture, religion is irrational, but also submits that pride in liberal democracy is just as irrational! That is, people must be conditioned to have pride in something they would have otherwise never had pride in. Bernays writings, as well as the general advertising and ideological messaging of

s­

”

n­

c­

m­

e­

i­

:

37

media, prove to have signi cant importance in this regard. And the hypocrisy of the last sentence of the quote: that a liberal democracy, an Open society, must contain sma Closed societies within its borders. Is an Open society in and of itself even possible then through Fukuyama’s model of recognition? The basis upon which “the universal recognition of the liberal state” is, by Fukuyama’s own submission, just as irrational as the sacred/profane foundations he cites as backwards and relics of human ignorance. For what reason should man have pride in liberal democracy then? And to be clear, man’s attachment to his culture, religion, people, is not “irrational” as Fukuyama attempts to invert as such: it is the foundation of human civilization that has developed for hundreds of thousands of years: it is natural law. To undo such a thing, I suppose, can be considered the "end of history” for man as it is the end of mankind itself. Fukuyama and Popper’s Open society rooted in liberal democracy is merely man’s attempt at playing God, at changing the laws of human nature. Fukuyama is revealed to merely be a soothsayer, an inverter of human nature into unnature — it is his goal to repress the past through the nurturing of an irrational superiority of the future and that which undoes the past: democracy and “freedom/” What more, the basis upon which past forms of recognition, according to Fukuyama’s recognition model of society, are irrational is only explicated indirectly through the thought that a people believing themselves to be superior is foolish — that nationalism, culture, and religion nd their roots in the belief of a people that they are superior to another — but ironically and almost laughably, Fukuyama commits the same crime by believing his own cultural model to be superior to others! He, like Popper, criticizes the belief of the “chosen people,” and in the same breath posits Western civilization rooted in liberal democracy as the “chosen” and “superior” form of governing! As the “last” and “ultimate” political ideology! If the past was marked by

fi

ll

fi

38

cultural tribalism, modernity is marked by political tribalism. As it will be revealed, the only universal that man can come to through solely reason is the universal that there are no universals: man is forever condemned to inconsistency and incompleteness 2 The most necessary part of the Open society, one that Soros and Popper merely hinted at, is explicitly stated by Fukuyama "The liberal state must be universal that is, grant recognition to all citizens because they are human beings, and not because they are members of some pa ticular national, ethnic, or racial group. And it must be homog neous insofar as it creates a classless society based on the abolition of the distinction between masters and slaves. As will be dissected later, the master slave dichotomy is often purported as the pinnacle of the human ignorance of the past, but one must understand that the underlying foundation for the authority structure between master and slave has its roots in the authority dynamic of the father and child. Even the Hebrews who were liberated from slavery by God did not abolish the practice, but rather, the injurious application of the practice “Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God” (Leviticus 24:43 The precise distinction between the Father child authority dynamic and the master slave authority dynamic is the presence, love, and fear of God... To be a master is to delegate authority. To be a slave is to be obedient. To be a father is to delegate authority. To be a child is to be obedient. The di erence is in service: the father serves the child through his authority, bound by the fear and love of God, but the master, the self-serving paragon of authority, serves none but himself precisely because he does not fear/love God. Verily, the only thing the modern man has changed in this master slave dichotomy with the absence of God is the

)

”

.

:

r­

e­

:

ff

1

39

notion of consent, but what use consent when the alternatives are merely illusions of choice? Freedom is upheld by an illusion, and man is too desensitized to see beyond his consumption and sedation: man is purely material, and to assuage the growing void of the spiritual within him, he has only one recourse: numbness: the modern man is not even living. To return to the Fukuyama quote, there is a fundamental reason for the necessity of universality and homogeneity for the true actualization of an Open society: without it, the system cannot reach consistency. That is, if one is to live in an Open society that believes all people are equal, then it cannot discriminate against people of other nations or Closed societies on the basis of some external parameter of di erentiation such as ethnicity, belief, culture, tradition, etc. Verily, what bigotry would an Open society advocate be committing by disallowing people entry due to their place of birth! The fundamental value that founds an Open society is the belief that all are born equal, and as such, an Open society can only achieve full consistency if all of mankind is within it: if all the colors of the various ags of the earth are combined into one rainbow ag: an Open Society is fu y realized when it is the only society... There are numerous hypocrisies, paradoxes, and contradictions within this realization of an Open society that will be discussed later on, but it must be understood that in the aim for “universality” and “homogeneity,” all things that are meaningful di erentiators of humans must be annu ed... That is, a must be the same Ex pluribus unu Out of man On 2

fl

ff

ll

:

ff

fl

ll

ll

m

y

e

2

40

In line with this homogeneity and universality, Fukuyama posits inequality as the enemy that must defeated for the physical actualization of this ideological destination “All truly liberal societies are in principle dedicated to the eli ination of conventional sources of inequality. Inequality can be understood the existence of authority, for authority naturally puts one man over another, and, following, equality is the destruction of a authority. The founding principle is reiterated: authority is evil. The revolt of the child against the Father. Individualism can only be actualized in the material world once a inequality has been eradicated — “conventional” acquires its changing meaning through the bias of temporality. This desire to eradicate inequality is cardinal to understanding the foundation of Individualism. If one perceives authority as a structure that is hierarchal, a pyramid of people with varying values and functions, then the pursuit of equality, Individualism, is the destruction of a such pyramids. It is the attening of all hierarchies of value until there is simply a at plain of equality, of Nihilism, where there is no peak except the transient idea of Individualism itself...the transient god of Individualism as the Mother of the “family of mankind,” the Mother that is not authoritative, but equa y loving. 2 To explicate on this matter of inequality, it must be understood that life and society cannot exist without the dynamic of authority between individuals precisely because individuals are naturally unequal. In a family, the roles, abilities, and functions of the members are all unequal. The father has total authority, the child has no authority, but conversely, the father is of least value, and the child is of most value. The father monolithically and totally serves the child and family: his existence as a father is literally de ned by service. The saying,

ll

:

m­

fl

fi

ll

”

ll

ll

fl

3

41

“women and children rst” makes this notion clear. With total authority comes total responsibility, and only through the fear of God do men remain virtuous in their application of authority. It was Benjamin Franklin himself, the man who believed that disobedience itself was obedience to God, who said “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” The modern man, the man who does not fear God, what matter is proper use of his authority? His injurious use of authority is not punished, and often, it is rewarded with material wealth, as authority in the Western world has been recast to solely exist within the individual: Individualism ensures that a men only serve themselves. The manager, boss, CEO, has no care for those under his authority, and this mindset of the “me rst,” Individualism, is the same mindset that puts it into the minds of men and women that they, their happiness, wellbeing, wealth, are more important than their family, community, collective, state, nation. The Collectivist man is made into the villain of humanity, but the Individualist man, he is the one who, when the Titanic sinks, says, “Me rst!” for he does not care about anything more than he does himself... Such is what is meant by a slave’s mentality, for the slave values even God below himself.. 2 As mentioned before, a pyramid of the collective contains varying levels of authority. The peak at the top represents the divine head of the society, a monarch, pharaoh, sultan, king, or emperor, the individual of ultimate and absolute authority over all (except God), and the bottom represents individuals who possess no authority: the slaves. The pyramid itself is a representation of the whole, the state/society/collective. Individualism is an ideology that

fi



fi

,

ll

.

fi

4

42

aims to topple all pyramids of authority and make all individuals of equivalent authority, independent and free — it is an ideology that aims to topple the pyramid of value and make all individuals of in nite value: all individuals into gods. (It should be noted that both the extreme form of Collectivism and Individualism have their aws, but the collectivist form has its shortcomings in human imperfection while the individualist form, while also possessing the same shortcoming in human corruption, is fundamenta y self-destructive.) It is in this context that the birth of Individualism is best understood — as a rejection of the hierarchal structure of authority: a revolt of the child over the Father: disobedience. This rejection of authority, disobedience, serves as the foundational principle governing the behavior of the modern individual 2 To state monolithically then, progress is the modern aim towards the social actualization of the values that have replaced God in the West — equality, freedom, independence: liberal Individualism. The aim towards the material construction of an Open Society, a society where all forms of authority are destroyed and a people are equal, where there are no di erent religions, cultures, races, nationalities — merely one religion, one culture, one race, one nation — the a -religion, a -culture, a -race, a -nation. Such a society is most adequately represented by the image of the rainbow ag. To make this message even clearer, introduction of the notion of the A -family is necessary: the entirety of mankind as one family. At the most recent G20 Summit in New Delphi, the secretary-general for the UN orated what could be called the motto of the future of the world: “One Family. One Earth. One Future.”11 Once again, the goal of an Open society is no secret. Why is it necessary to abolish the notion of a

11

YouTube.com

ff

ll

fl

l

ll

.

ll

fl

fi

ll

ll

ll

5

43

family alongside the notions of religion, culture, race, and nationality? We return to the evil of inequality and authority. Popper cites tribalism and the belief of the chosen people as the origin of the collectivist structure of society: “Tribalism, i.e. the emphasis on the supreme importance of the tribe without which the individual is nothing at all He proceeds to state the exact transition from Collectivism to Individualism that has been referenced over and over again in this chapter “The emancipation of the individual was indeed the great spiritual revolution which had led to the breakdown of tribalism and to the rise of democracy. Tribalism is the foundation for all collective groups of humans. As Individualism is a doctrine that is eminently opposed to Collectivism, destruction of tribalism is a necessity for the actualization of an Open society. What is the foundational building block of every community, and therefore city, state, and nation? The family. That is, the family is the foundation of every single form of a collectively minded social structure that has ever existed among the human species. The family is the foundational structure that leads to a forms of tribalism. Therefore, the desire to end tribalism is the desire to end that which founds tribalism: the family. This is a necessity for the Open society model. Fukuyama mentioned the existence of smaller Closed societies within the main Open society, and the only way to totally eradicate these is to eradicate the family. The family is the basest and most “conventional source of inequality,” the smallest closed society that leads to all other closed societies. A man, if he loves his family, treats them as superior to a others around him, to all strangers, friends, coworkers, etc. His life, if he is virtuous and obedient to God, is spent in service to his family, and therefore the community, city, state, and nation. As a result, the superior treatment of

”

ll

:



ll

”

44

his family, if the society is consistent, leads to the stability and social cohesion within the society at large: the society itself naturally becomes a family, but only though the belief that the family/collective is superior to the individual. In ful lling his responsibility obtained through his authority while simultaneously existing under the authority/fear of God, he raises children that are t to behave as he did: in service of others. Verily, this notion, at its very core, is quite simple to understand. Which is better for a society, society being an interdependent group of people: people that are collectivist, that believe life is spent in service to others, or people who are individualist, that believe life is spent in service of themselves? What will last longer? A group of sel ess people, or a group of sel sh people? The answer is self-evident, and the result of a society operating on these paradigms is clear: continuance, or self-destruction. To be fully explicit then, the only way to full eradicate inequality is to destroy the foundational pillar upon which it is constructed. The transient goal of Individualism, the Open society, can only be actualized when the family has been eradicated. This full “actualization” is manifest at the moment self-destruction. 2 From the family springs the community, the state, the nation. Hitherto, every structure of human organization has had the family structure as its social blueprint: a hierarchy of value with the father at the top and the members of the family cascading downward: the pyramid as the representation of the family itself: this is why God himself is called the Father, the Father of mankind. The state itself can be understood as the abstract representation of the father, the entity that is responsible for the protection and provision of the whole, and therefore, has total authority combined with absolute responsibility over the whole. What was it that Soros said?

fi

fi

fl

fi



6

45

“Open society does not recognize such authority even if it recognizes the rule of law and the sovereignty of the state. An Open society is a society that is fundamentally built from rejection of family, for from the family emerges all of the notions of inequality, tribalism, authority, and natural order that Popper, Fukuyama, and the progress philistines of modernity endlessly protest against. The evil totalitarian that they believe to be ghting against is the very Father himself, the very idea of the Father that has given birth to not only the family, but every collective structure of humans to ever exist. (Perhaps this gives insight towards the concentrated hatred towards the “patriarchy” and any form of masculinity) That which has typically been described as the revolt of the slave against the master is revealed to be the revolt of the child against the father... And in the vacancy produced by this revolution, the A -Loving Equalitarian Mother emerges... This brings us once more to the fundamental paradox of the Open society: that its de ning characteristic as stated by George Soros — that it has no absolute — is a hypocrisy: an Open society makes Individualism the absolute, the divine, the father, God... But as Individualism is the revolt against the very conception of the Father itself, Individualism is the divine and absolute Mother, the female God of a female future... This is what it means to emasculate God... 2 Man is free in the West insofar as he is enslaved to the value of eedom. An Open society is open insofar as it retains the absolute boundary of Individualism, insofar as its inhabitants believe in and a rm Individualism. Popper understood this, which is why he explicated the paradox of tolerance to disguise the hypocrisy of an Open society

ll

:

fr

fi

”

fi

ffi

7

46

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. The pillars of the Open society crumble under the weight of the same argument used against Closed societies: Popper is revealed to be attacking Plato upon the basis of a crime he himself is committing. If it is the case that an Open society must be intolerant of those that don’t respect its values, is it not outing itself as a Closed society, a society that establishes a divine law of absolutes that all are subject to, this such law being the law of liberal Individualism, the God of Individualism?! Multiculturalism and diversity are revealed to be a Potemkin vi age, a pluralism that is nothing more than a monism. Popper attacks the spiritual and religious followers of the past for their lack of rationality and their blind obedience to a deity that imparts the law and Truth, but Popper is merely a blind worshipper of his own god, a god that marks not a step forward for mankind, but merely another step towards the void of a feminine future, born from the super uous human desire to destroy all authority and become god. Feminine precisely because it is a future where there will be no authority, no Father: where a wi be gods. 2 Progress is an inversion of the past, a revolt against the past, against all that de nes the past, rooted in the cultural ego-centricity of a set of generations that have somehow come to believe that universal and objective values have been achieved through the culminated e ort of rationality while simultaneously believing that rationality leads to the relativism of a things. This

ff

ll

fi

fl

”

ll

ll

ll

8

47

evidenced by a phrase that is repeated endlessly by the younger generations of the West: “My truth.” Such a statement is analogous to saying, “I determine what is right, wrong, and verily, I determine the world around me. I am objective. I am god.” If the individual is of ultimate importance, if the individual is god, then their emotions are facts: Individualism is in essence feminine... Popper himself notes the futility of the modern e orts towards certainty, “The demand for absolute certainty is a human desire that is beyond the reach of human powers,” yet all the same, he constructs his own certain political philosophy: that of the Open society. If it is with “my truth” that people ultimately navigate the world, upon what basis can a believer of such a doctrine construct “The Truth”? And if he concedes that there is no such thing, then verily, what is left for him but to be trampled and destroyed by those who believe otherwise? If the grounds for which Individualism exists is simply faith in the subjective desires of the individual, what prejudice can an individualist have for another individualist whose subjectivism is the end of Individualism? If the basis for the value of the ideology is rooted purely in the subjective motives and emotions of the individual, does it not have to vindicate any and a emotions, even the emotions that would aim to destroy the very Individualism enabling such subjectivity? If it is an absolute that all things are relative, upon what basis is can “natural” and “universal” rights be constructed? Upon what basis can the concept of “Progress” even be de ned? Can it even be pursued? Upon what basis can the modern rationalist make a claim to “good” or “evil? “After we have been reduced to a condition in which the maxims of the heartless voluptuary as well as those of the sentimental philistine have to be regarded as no less defensible than those of the idealist, of the gentleman, or of the saint? We cannot take

ff

”

fi

ll

48

seriously this belated insistence on responsibility and sanity, this inconsistent concern with consistency, this irrational praise of rationality.” (Leo Strauss Does the modern man even know he is stepping at a , let alone forward? What if that which has described forward movement for the modern world since the enlightenment has been nothing more than meaningless fa ing in the void of the abyss? What if this weightless feeling of “freedom” the modern man has had all this time was not him ying, but him fa ing?

ll

)

fl

ll

ll

49

50

Chapter Tw The Era of the Individua

l

o

51

understood as the pursuit of godhood by man: the desire to abolish all forms of authority and be obedient to only one’s self. (Of course, those who serve themselves are the greatest slaves) What the modern man believes is “up" is clear: an Open society. (Let’s throw aside any early paltry claims about socialism, as these will be directly addressed later on, and have already been addressed implicitly.) Where these values come from, their shaky foundations and logical paradoxes will be discussed in the following chapter, but it must be understood how exactly these values are decadent, self-destructive, and degenerative. That is, precisely why is it that Individualism, the denial of authority and of the Father, the making of the individual valuable in-itself, is something that mankind should not be aiming towards. Before dissecting the hypocrisies of the historicism of progress philistines, we must reveal what exactly their progress even means to begin with: where it is this progress has led us and continues to lead us. To some, the answer is intuitively clear, born from inquiry into the absurdities of the modern day — verily, they can hear the disharmony — but for those who feel that Individualism is a valiant pursuit, that man has reached the endpoint of history, further examination of the values is necessary.

A reiteration of the central element of Individualism: its foundational principle as the emancipation of the individual from an external institution of authority. That is, a foundational principle of the behavior and mentality of the “individual” is authoritative and totalitarian disdain towards authority and totalitarianism: modernity is a paradox, eedom itself is made into the totalitarian construct that everyone obeys: man is enslaved to eedom. In order

fr

fr



52

fi

1

2

The de nition of progress is clear: the pursuit of greater Individualism which can be

the infant years of the nation of America, the common claim that America, and the West at large, were not actually equal appears once again. As it had been addressed, this is a result not of the values of Individualism themselves, but rather, due their imperfect implementation. That is, America was, and still is, in contradiction with its fundamental value system. The history of America wi be the gradual ironing out of the contradictions regarding the very ideas it was founded upon. The history of America has already been written.

(As a note, although the West and America are headed towards the same destination, for the purposes of this section, solely American history will dissected. Though there is an emphasis on America, the same general events take place in the West at large, just under di erent circumstances and times. For example, women have obtained the right to vote in all of the West, though at di erent moments in history for each nation: the underlying foundational principles for women’s su rage however, are the same for all of the nations as they share the same general political structure of liberal democracy and emphasis on Individualism.) The Declaration of Independence holds that it is self-evident that, “all men are created equal,” but how could it have taken almost a hundred years for this “self-evident” belief of equality to be extended to African Americans? To be certain, this was not due to a lack of desire on the part of the founding fathers, who were clearly aware of this fundamental contradiction in the birth of their “free” nation “[Black] slavery is an evil of colossal magnitude and I am utterly averse to the admission of slavery into the Missouri Territories. It being among my rst wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.” (John Adams

)

fi

:

ff

ll

ff

53

ff

3

to pursue freedom, there must be something one is freeing themselves from. Returning to

in one hand and a whip for a righted slaves in the other?” (Alexander Hamilton “...there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” (George Washington “Slavery is…an atrocious debasement of human nature.” (Benjamin Franklin How can any man bestowed with any degree of mental acuity not notice such a grand contradiction as the enslavement of men in a country founded on the belief that a men are created equal? Once again, it was not that the contradiction was unnoticed, but that the vestiges of the past needed generational conditioning to be undone. After almost a hundred years and a brutally fought con ict, the rst step towards reaching the ideological end of America was taken in 1865 with the Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent end of the Civil War. What was this step precisely? The eeing of man om the authority of the institution of slavery.

Some say this was solely an emancipation for African people, but slavery still persists as an institution in various parts of Africa. It is true that racial divide was an important element of slavery in America and the West, but its necessary to note that racism itself is not the origin of slavery, but rather, the consequence. It were Africans themselves that sold the majority of the slaves that were transported to Africa, and white people were also subject to various forms of slavery in both America and the West at large. The broader point is that slavery as an institution for a men was abolished, not just the African man, although, this isn’t to indicate that racial divisions between people of di erent races still doesn’t exist, nor to say that slavery still doesn’t exist in parts of the world. To be speci c, it is important to

ll

)

)

fi

fr

ff

fr

)

fi

fl

ff

ll

54



4

“Who talks most about freedom and equality? Is it not those who hold a bill of Rights

an abolition of the foundational belief surrounding slavery: that a groups of people prefer their own family to another’s. Certainly, racism is something that should be eradicated, but Individualism cannot do such a thing. Individualism makes eradicating racism impossible, for the individualist man believes he is superior to a people: Individualism only makes man into a greater racist..

The next step “forward” (forward meaning towards the end of Individualism, the Open society, the A society, the rainbow society) was the Su rage movement, or, the gradual liberation of women — but liberation from what precisely? While it is clear that slavery is an atrocious contradiction regarding the idea that all men are created equal, the inequality of women seems to not even be a contradiction — a woman is clearly not a man. Even though it is true that women are not included in the terminology of the Declaration of Independence, this fact becomes inconsequential when a broader perspective of Individualism is taken. Individualism as a political ideology was used by an oppressed group of people, the American pilgrims, revolting against the both physical and abstract external institution of authority that was the monarchy of Great Britain, and, as such, it is an ideology that can be taken and used by any group that feels itself to be under the heel of any authoritative force of oppression, oppression which is always decidedly masculine. It was the fundamental spirit of the founding fathers that inspired women to ght for their freedom, and their own Declaration pushed forward the same sentiment that freed the original Americans. We discover that the emancipation of women is not so much consistency with verbiage, but rather, consistency with foundational sentiments

fi

ll

:

ff

ll

.

55

ll

5

note that racism of all kinds continues to persist, that the abolition of slavery did not mean

recognize.” (Sarah Moore Grimke Ultimately, the feminist movement is simply the continuance of the revolt against authority, against the family, the collectivist structure of society; it has the aim of freeing women from the institution of the “patriarchy,” from the authority of the “father,” an emancipation that is seemingly coming to a close today. When we peel back the layers of this liberation, we discover that feminism possesses within its ideological foundations a sinister conclusion, one that leads mankind towards the only starting line of the pursuit of emancipation from the greatest and most oppressive institution of authority ever known to man, the institution that has always been our greatest limitation: the institution of biology...

Feminism is an ideology rooted in making women ee, and it must be understood that this necessarily means separating them from their nature as reproducers and child-bearers and transforming them into “individuals” — individuals as “beings” (not necessarily human) free from all external institutions of authority. In order to do this, it must abide by the tenets of Individualism: it must, by undoing the authority of men over women, make women equal to men, for only then can they be free and independent. The injustice of the inequality between man and woman that created a relationship of dependence and restriction of freedom must be undone for there to be freedom, independence, and equality for all. Feminism is an undoing of the past, a movement that perceives the past and all that characterized it as evil: a destruction of the Father — verily, the hatred of the “patriarchy” can be implicitly understand as the hatred of God, a hatred that is present not only among women but among men that are essentially women. Several processes and methods have been constructed out

fr

56

)

6

“I know nothing of man’s rights, or woman’s rights; human rights are all that I

of necessity to actualize this transient goal of equality and all of them serve to undo some Western biblical/civilization quality of the unequal relationship between men and women. In 1969, the destruction of the institution of marriage begins through the introduction of no-fault divorce: women are freed from their biblical and civilizational submissive position beneath men: women are eed om the authority of the institution of marriage. Through equitable work laws, women are allowed to enter the workforce and through job quotas, not only overcome their physical inferiority to men, but free themselves from institutional dependence upon men. The “independent woman” is constructed. In accordance with this construction of the independent woman, as it is an impossibility — women by nature are dependent on men, a woman that has become “independent” has abandoned her nature: she has a but become a man, and even then, that is not true: if not dependent on a physical man, she is dependent on the abstract man: the State — the welfare state is constructed, the institution of provisioning and protection that has replaced the father/husband for a population of ever growing single mothers to present the i usion of independence among women. Various reasons are touted for this rise in single motherhood, but no-one dares to talk about the root of the issue: the destruction of marriage as an institution in service of children and the proliferation of technology that circumvents human nature. A rmative action and capitalist greed fuel the entry of more and more women into universities, and today, nearly 60% of all university students are female.12 The equalizing of men and women is done through the law, but the general destruction of the institution of marriage is conducted systemica y — ideologica y. Modern warfare is ideological warfare, and this is doubly the case regarding women. Natural conformists, women follow the ow of the norm in whatever society or

12

bestcolleges.com

ll

ll

ffi

fl

ll

fr

fr

ll

57

environment they are in, this as a natural result of their physical weakness and vulnerability: conformity is a behavioral tool for survival. As such, in the age of social media, women are most easily controlled and in uenced; advertising and consumerism is mostly directed towards woman and numerous statistics con rm this: according to Forbes women make up 85% of the consumer spending market share13, and women are far more likely to be in uenced by advertising as opposed to men, though feminized men are not much di erent. Up to date with every fad and trend, one needs only to study the general behavior of women to understand the social state of a society and whether or not it is masculine or feminine: collectivist or individualist: wether people believe in duty or they believe in “happiness” and “fun” — how close it is to the end of times. Following this characteristic of conformity within women, observation of the trend of media, lms, literature, and shows in the West makes clear the general and gradual ideological destruction of marriage as it has traditionally existed as well as the nature of women. Men are either portrayed as submissive and feminine or abusive and absent, husbands are made into bumbling idiots under the guidance of their wives, and the woman is displayed as the man, the CEO, the leader, the head of the family. Men and qualities of masculinity, when they are expressed by men (female masculinity is “empowerment”), are belittled and humiliated — men are emasculated, made into the tail —, women are made to be the ones holding positions of authority in the workforce, government, family, and various other institutions in all lms and shows, sexual immorality is not only put on view, but promoted on every platform, single motherhood is championed as a virtue, women are “empowered” to become men, lesbianism and homosexuality are extolled, and a rmative action, job quotas, and social conditioning have made it so that

13

forbes.com

ff

fi

fi

fi

fl

ffi

fl

58

point is of incredible importance. The modern man who believes the entry of women into education, into a quarter million in debt, is with any desire aside from capitalist greed has already been conditioned into self-regulation. To make this point clear, women hold 66% of student loan debt.14 More to the point, the introduction of women into the workforce is nothing more than the functional equalizing of men and women, the beginning of the internal destruction of the family structure, and the furtherance of the ideology of materialism: idol worship of the god of money. The feminization of a society is twofold — it is the gradual feminization/emasculation of men combined with the gradual masculinization/ empowerment of women: only when men are more like women and women are more like men can there be equality. Only when men are women and women are men can there be true equality, can there be no imbalance in authority. Only when the head has become the tail and the tail has become the head... The “empowerment” of women is simply the process of masculinization, the becoming of man by woman.

To reiterate, feminism is a movement that gradually makes women equal to men, and in order to do this, it must ee women om their biology. Namely, the parameter of di erence that is the reason for female inequality is not some systemic form of nurture: it is natural. Physically and mentally, it is clear that men are superior to women, though this doesn’t stop people from having the arguing in the alternative. The greatest professionals in every category of work known to man are men, and although men and women have similar average IQs, the end (and entry) of the curve of intelligence is dominated entirely by men. The

educationdata.org

ff

fr

59

fi

14

fr

7

women are increasingly dwar ng men in universities as well as the workforce. The latter

conditioning e ort to undo natural inequality and nurture unnatural equality. There is a simple and self-evident reason for this: men are generally rational whereas women are generally emotional, and this is a biological truth: no amount of advertisement, messaging, forced taboo, ideological nurturing — social conditioning — can change it. It has been evolutionary ordained within mankind for hundreds of thousands of years: a couple generations of Sex in the City and a rmative action can only provide the illusion of change: it can only serve to deceive. This isn’t to say women aren’t capable or competent, and to be certain, women outperform men in certain elds, talents, and abilities, but the modern imperative is not interested in women’s natural strengths, but in equalizing their weaknesses with the strengths of man. A woman is a slave to her biology just as much a man is a slave to his, but society seeks to only alleviate the authority of biology over women, although there is a general insemination of images and symbols representing men as the nurturers (as “stay at home fathers”) to balance the scale of authority. The method of achieving equality is the inversion of roles: man is made into a woman, and woman is made into a man: God is emasculated. The Father is made into the Mother... “My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.” (Isaiah 3:12)

But how exactly is it that a woman can be freed from her biology? It isn’t as if her mind can be separated from her body, a body cursed by God to undergo the pain of childbirth and its accompanying psychological e ects. Technology is the harbinger of the divine Mother. The advent of the pill as well as abortion have enabled women to circumvent their nature as women and condition their behavior into masculine roles. Feminism is the gradual separation



fi

ffi

ff

60

ff

8

seeming criticisms of this truth in the modern day are all part of the general social

of women om their biology, for only through this process can the natural inequality of man and woman be undone. In fact, modernity itself can be understood in the same manner: the gradual divorce of man from himself, from God, from nature, from what is natural, and into what is, above all, unnatural. Why is this the case? In order for Individualism to be actualized there must be equality, and therefore, all sources of inequality, starting with conventional, as Fukuyama advocated, and moving towards abstract, must be eradicated. The wording is not important, just as it wasn’t for the su rage movement, but the principle of the idea: authority/inequality is evil and freedom/equality is good. A source of inequality can be understood as the in uence of some “oppressive” authority restricting the eedom of the individual, the independence of the individual, the equality of the individual, and therefore, creating a pyramid of authority that must be destroyed. A instances of the Father must be destroyed. What is the base pyramid of social authority that all people in all societies are subject to? The family. The only way to undo this immutable biological truth...is to undo biology... Spurned by the idealistic Individualism that founds America, feminism is the process of separating a woman from her own nature, making her into an individual whose biology is not a meaningful indicator of personhood, not a meaningful indicator of social presence, function, or role: equalizing her with man, that which nature made her unequal to. The goal of feminism can be understood as the transient and gradual destruction of the term “woman” as it has been historically and biblically known and the merging of man and woman into the monolithic “individual”/“human”/“American,” and this process towards an Open society can be aptly described as feminization, feminization being the general emasculation of God, the making of God into a woman, only possible after the original inversion from Collectivism to Individualism, from nature to nurture: from the divine and absolute Father, to the a -loving

ll

fr

ll

ff

fl

fr

61

own biology. The quest for equality is the quest for sameness

Understanding feminism and its ideological foundation make clear the rise of the LGBT and trans-ideology in the modern day; a new group of oppressed individuals seeking liberation from some set of external institutions of authority, although for this group in particular, the institution they are battling is entirely internal: it is their own biology that is the authoritative culprit. It is one of the main goals of this book to prove irrevocably that transideology is a result of feminism, the logical continuation of feminism, or rather, the logical conclusion of the paradox within feminism. What is this paradox? The goal of feminism is to free woman from her own nature, her biology — to make biology inconsequential when it comes to her individuality and personhood, to eradicate the pronoun “her” — but in order to do so, feminism must be able to denote what a woman is. That is, if it is the goal of feminism to separate a woman from what de nes her as a woman, her biology, then it has need of that very thing to denote who exactly it must liberate! The paradox has only one resolution: eradication of the term woman. Feminism can only be complete when there are no women, when a woman has been totally separated from the very thing that gives meaning to the term “women,” when there is no longer a need for feminism: when biology has been destroyed... This paradox naturally leads us directly to the belief that roots trans-ideology: biology is not a meaningful indicator of gender, personhood, or individuality: biology is not an immutable characteristic of an individual. That is, under the trans paradigm, biology is something that can be changed, a pyramid of authority that can be toppled. In order for men and women to be free, equal, and independent, to truly become individuals, a man must be

fr

.

62

fi

9

and equalitarian Mother. The history of feminism will be gradual separation of women om their

able to become a woman and a woman must be able to become a man: the tyrannical authority of the pyramid of biology preventing such a thing must be eradicated.. 1 Evidence of the paradox currently playing out are the “TERF” and “Let Women Speak” movements. TERF stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminists and “Let Women Speak” is a movement that is against the notion that a man can become a women, that advocates for letting true women speak. That one must use the word “true” to indicate a biological truth is further evidence of the incredulity of modernity and reminds us of the words of George Orwell “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the rst duty of intelligent men. Both of these groups are against trans-ideology and desire the segregation of terms “man” and “woman” on the basis of biology — both are xated on retaining their equality with men while also simultaneously holding onto their biology, the cause for their natural inequality with men. The two groups can be likened to white anti-abolitionist movements in the 1850s in the sense that they accept the ideology that has given them their freedom but refuse to allow it to reach logical consistency and extend freedom and equality to an oppressed group of people. The anti-abolitionists held onto the idea of equality that gave them their freedom from Britain, but refused to logically complete this idea by giving freedom to Americans with African descent just as the Terfs hold onto the idea of equality that gave women their liberation from biology, but refuse to logically complete the idea by giving the same biological freedom to men. That is, just as the anti-abolitionists refused to extend the recognition of individuality to African Americans, TERFs refuse to extend recognition of

fi

.

fi

”

:

0

63

individuality to men. The idea of Individualism that led to the abolition of slavery is identical to the idea of feminism that will lead to the abolition of gender. Trans-ideology is a direct result of feminism, the separation of a woman from her biology, and the conclusion of trans-ideology is the destruction of man and woman as meaningful identi ers of personhood: the destruction of the institution of biology as a separator of humans and the uni cation of all into the category of “individuals”/“humans”/“Americans.” The movement refuses to be bound to the traditional norms of marriage and relationships (between a man and woman) and holds that marriage and relationships can be had by people of any gender combination or quantity. This adds to the general “undoing of the past” and feminization of mankind that characterizes modernity, liberal democracy, and Individualism. Man’s behavior, social relations, nature, are inverted into their feminine opposite through the ideological and governmental e orts of social conditioning: nurture. This is what is meant by Nihilism. An uprooting of man from himself, from his body, om God, and a fall into the void of nothingness 1 Sure, we can say that men can pretend to be women and women can pretend to be men, but their biology hasn’t changed has it? Their chromosomes, reproductive organs, physical qualities cannot be altered...can they? A generation ago this would have been the natural response, but technology is the great transformer of reality, and with it, modern society can accomplish the objectives necessary to reach fu consistency with Individualism: to transform man into god. Abortion and birth control pills are merely preventative methods of normal biological processes, but with the advent of hormone blockers and sex-change surgery, it is increasingly becoming the case that the only thing that can separate a man from a woman

fi

fr

ll

ff

.

fi

1

64

and vice versa are their chromosomes...but this isn’t socially true: reproduction is the rst and last thing that binds men and women functionally to their biology. For years now there have been claims of arti cial reproduction, and if those are not true, it is undeniable that they will eventually become true. Children will no longer need to produced in the covenant between a man and woman: biology will become entirely irrelevant. When such a technology becomes widespread, feminism is complete: Eve returns to the rib of Adam. The sin of woman is undone, and verily, woman herself is undone. Biology returns to its beginning: the end of human biology is its beginning. The inversion from nature to nurture is complete: Individualism — at least in the realm of biology — reaches consistency. Progress is often synonymized with the construction of Heaven on Earth, but this path forward is the material, and in this case biological, path back to the beginning. 1 What are the precise liberations that indicate this completion of feminism? The liberation of women from the authority of the institution of marriage (divorce). The liberation of men and women from the authority of the institution of religious marriage(between a man and women: gay marriage). The liberation of women from the authority of the institution of dependence upon men (workforce, university, job quotas, a rmative action, social conditioning). The liberation of women from the authority of the institution of pregnancy(abortion). The liberation of women from the authority of the institution of childbirth(abortion, arti cial birth, surrogate mothers). The liberation of women from the authority of the institution of motherhood(the father becomes the mother). The liberation of man, woman, and children from the authority of the institution of hormones(puberty

fi

ffi

fi

fi

2

65

blockers). All of these sub-liberations can be uni ed under the main liberation: liberation from the institution of biology: the destruction of the pyramid of biology. 1 Once this liberation is complete, the journey towards the Open society, the A society, the rainbow society, is nearly complete. There will be no totalitarian crown of gender extending its authoritative reach of inequality over the individuals of a free world — there will be no men or women: just individuals. The unequal structure of the family, that which founds Collectivism, wi be undone.The goal of equality, by natural law, is the goal of sameness, and already, the modern man can see vestiges of this sameness in his city centers, “churches,” universities, and government. The inversion continues, god continues to transition.. 1 Feminism is the ideology born from Individualism that logically leads to trans-ideology just as Individualism led to the abolition of slavery. If you, as an individual, have qualms with trans-ideology, abortion, gay marriage, puberty blockers, etc, but believe in Individualism and equality, then you have just not reached consistency with these ideas that found your society. You may think it is your culture, your heritage, or your religion that is the underpinning of Western society, but these are simply relics of the past that continuously erode from the world. Just as anti-feminists were conditioned out of the ideological pool of society, so to wi you. You culture, your heritage, your tradition — they have no meaning. This society is not founded on what has founded all other societies in history, the people — it is founded on a set of values that reach homogeneity is destroying a other values. These values are slowly and cancerously growing until they will become your culture, your religion, your tradition, your identity... They are a sapling that were planted in the garden of the collective, but as the

ll

.

ll

ll

fi

ll

3

4

66

other trees were besot with poison and decay, this was given all the energies and resources man had, arti cia y nurtured with his full e ort, growing discreetly and rapidly until now, in the present day, its roots have intertwined with every part of society. In order to uproot this tree of ideology, one must uproot the entire society. The only solution for the West is redemption, restoration, Rebirth... This force of progress towards the Open society has the entire Western world under its belief and the entire industry of mass media as its mouthpiece. All this time, you have been confused, bewildered by the state of social a airs in the West, and this only because you were ignorant of what these values were truly made of. “Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their nal consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals —because we must experience nihilism before we can nd out what value these “values” really had” (Nietzsche This is the modern world. This is the infant stage of the Open society. That which confuses you now will only increasingly become the norm, and all that you have known, all that makes you human, is slowly and constantly being erased. Welcome to the Era of the Individual. You will own nothing, be nothing, think nothing, and be happy. You will be without culture, without tradition, without family, without community, without gender, and you wi be happy. Your life will be nothing but consumption, a material existence in the void, separated from all things that make you human, and sedation will be your only pastime: Nihilism. A democracy can only function under a system of mindless consumerism, and all this time, the modern man has been consuming himself... We will have reached the Open society when there is nothing le . Consistency is the bottom of the void.

ft

ll



fi

ff

fi

ff

)

ll

fi

67

68

69

Chapter Thre Faith and Reaso

n

e

70

1

The fundamental reason for the hypocritical paradox within the conception of an Open society is Popper’s failure to understand the truth about reason and its connection to faith. Verily, this the true for all who say they believe in “progress,” the philistines of the modern world, and even those who seemingly “conserve” the past. If these people were to have a spirit in anything, it would be in materialism itself, the dogma that has corrupted the mind of man with the foolish errors of rationality and cultural ego-centricity making all into selfserving robots focused solely on wealth and its sedative quality. As stated in Chapter One, an Open society commits the same crime it accuses closed societies of committing: it makes its openness the basis upon which it closes itself to others. That is, it makes freedom, equality, and independence the absolute boundary and constructs Individualism as the divine authority it worships. An open society is closed. The reason for Popper’s oversight is a failure to understand what is meant by secularism and faith combined with a devout worship of rationality: a devout worship of nothing. Videlicet, Popper and Fukuyama, verily all “enlightened” minds pursuing progress, discreetly believed rationality, could lead, had led, society towards objective and ultimate values, these being the values of Individualism. This, rationally speaking, is not true. Rationality alone cannot make any value judgements. Rationality alone can only lead to the self-destruction of rationality: the conclusion of rationality is nihilism, the faith in faithlessness. There is no such thing as “secularism” or “atheism”: these are simply well-hidden paradoxes that the average mind is either too stupid and/or sedated to understand. The true secularist and atheist could not make any arguments for secularism or atheism, for they would understand that what they believe is just as just and unjust as what

71

“All that exists is just and unjust and equally justi ed in both.” (Nietzsche True secularity, true atheism, is nonexistence. Those who claim to be as such are either liars, or cowards and liars...

In order to make this fully clear, one must understand what is truly meant by Nihilism and its potency. Today, it has become a sort of fad to be a nihilist, though much of this is pseudonihilism. To be speci c, people will claim they believe life is meaningless, that they believe in nothing itself, but all the while, continue to live life, advocating for certain value judgements that are always degenerative, and never facing what Nietzsche would call the abyss. Nihilism is the o spring of rationality, the inheritor of rationality, the rational conclusion of rationality. The true nihilist is the one who has cast o from himself all of the value judgements, presuppositions, and dogmas of the material and religious world and viewed himself as close to absolute objectivity as humanely possible: viewed himself both as far away from and close to himself as possible. The nihilist has dug down to the very depth of human belief and thought and discovered the single revelation that de nes nihilism, the single lie upon which all of life is founded. He has uncovered the single presupposition, axiom, self-evident belief upon which all of humanity is built: that life is more valuable than death. This is a claim that rationality cannot prove. That beauty, joy, “goodness,” “truth,” and “love” are a irrational value judgements. That life itself is an irrational value judgement.

When one does enough reasoning, one stops reasoning. Namely, one discovers there is no reason to reason. Rationality destroys rationality: rationality self-destructs. Leo Strauss, a

)

l

fi

fi

ff




fi

72

ff

2

3

their opposition believes:

eld of political theory and philosophy, wrote “The crisis of modernity reveals itself in the fact, or consists in the fact, that modern western man no longer knows what he wants—that he no longer believes that he can know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong. Until a few generations ago, it was generally taken for granted that man can know what is right and wrong, what is the just or the good or the best order of society—in a word that political philosophy is possible and necessary. In our time this faith has lost its power....Above all, as is generally admitted, modern culture is emphatically rationalistic, believing in the power of reason; surely if such a culture loses its faith in reason’s ability to validate its highest aims, it is in a crisis. This crisis of modernity Strauss is hinting at, which is the same nihilism that Nietzsche predicted would befall mankind, is the logical conclusion of taking all things to their logical conclusion. It is the consequence of abandoning God, faith, and examining everything with the objective eye of reason, a process that can only lead to self-destruction. A value judgements are a matter of faith. In order to assert wether or not something is good or bad, to assign value to it, one needs faith. Reason alone can only lead him to the abyss, the destination of the Western world. Reason applied to the highest aims of the West, to progress, cause those very aims to disintegrate. Rationality is the touch of Modern Midas: it makes all things meaningless: it is the touch of Nihilism. To be sure, blind faith can be just as disastrous as blind rationality: one could believe an eraser is God. Faith and reason, as it has been said, is the only formula for life, but in what exactly do we put our faith into?..

.

ll

fi

:

73

”

fi

4

German-American and Jewish political philosopher who had a signi cant impact on the

prejudice, a discrimination against death. To put value into life is to simply take it as selfevident, as a presupposition, an unprovable axion of existence: to believe in it. True and pure Nihilism is the ridding oneself of this irrational prejudice towards death, the presupposition of “Life,” negating self-interest, and consequently, self-destructing: suicide. Nihilism is faith in faithlessness, belief in nothing, an abandonment of life itself. When Popper, Open society advocates, verily the entire cohort of secular, liberal, humanitarian, egalitarian, progressive, globalist philistines assert the “universality” of Individualism and their value judgements on the basis of rationality and secularism, they out themselves as hypocrites. In the same breath, they criticize the collectivist traditional societies and their absolute value frameworks on the basis of a supposed “irrational” belief system and lack of universality, all the while advocating for their very own absolute structure of society that too, with their perspective, is based in an irrational belief. They put faith into the values of freedom, independence, equality, and make Individualism the God they blindly worship, while masquerading their e orts to destroy the societies of others through the super uous sentimentality of “love” and “tolerance,” all while committing the same crime they accuse these societies of: believing their own society to be superior to all others. Once again, a reminder that these people with the motto of acceptance are the least accepting. They are the most monotheistic of believers, and modernity is their crusade against the Patriarch that is the past, a crusade they believe will lead them to the Salvation that is the Future, End, and Beginning..

fl

ff

74

.

5

From the pure rationalists point of view, there is no reason to live. Life is merely a bias, a

that rationality alone cannot lead to value judgements? That man is truly incapable of producing his own objective and universal values? In order to answer this question fully and de nitively, although it was already answered in the tablets of the annals of the past and by many before me, an understanding of Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorem is required. It is often said that math is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and this theorem proves as such. Developed in 1931 in response to Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica, the theorem proves that an objective system of mathematics is impossible, that in every attempt to construct an objective formal system of mathematics, one falls into one of two situations: completeness and inconsistency or incompleteness and consistency. The rst theorem states: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.” (Raatikainen 2020 This means that there are statements within the system that are true but unprovable — statements that must be taken as self-evident. The second theorem states “For any consistent system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself.” (Raatikainen 2020 The system cannot overcome contradiction, it cannot fully verify its own consistency. A formal system of mathematics operates in a binary form, 1s and 0s, true and false, but if one replaces 1s and 0s with “right” and “wrong,” “good” and “evil,” to construct a formal ethical system, one discovers that every formal ethical system falls into the same de ciencies as formal mathematical systems: inconsistency or incompleteness. Of course, here it will be

)

fi

:

)



75

fi

fi

It’s clear that rationality leads to the self-destruction of rationality, but does this truly mean

the broader point stands: if math itself is not universal, how can any ethical system be? How can the modern man make any claim to universality in regard to ethical values, to any absolute and objective value judgements from a purely rational standpoint if there is no universal mathematics, no objective and absolute mathematics? And more to the point, if mathematics is purely descriptive, then where have all these “rational” prescriptions for life and society come from? What is it that the modern man, the promoter of the Open society, the soothsayer of love and equality, stands upon? Upon what foundation does he obtain his values? Upon what basis does he even reason “As a consequence of this chain of scienti c development the notion of a rational morality, the heritage of Greek philosophy, has, to repeat myself, lost its standing completely; all choices are, it is argued, ultimately non-rational or irrational.” (Strauss

It is my contention that the modern ideological belief in Individualism is representative of an incomplete system. Namely, it cannot be proven that the presuppositions of equality, freedom, independence are good in themselves: they have to be taken as true, taken as good. They are axioms, presuppositions, self-evident statements that are unprovable, and as such, require faith to be believed. This is the fundamental hypocrisy of the Open society, the paradox Popper did not understand — that an Open society operates on its own absolute and unprovable value judgments, that an Open society has its own God that it believes in unconditionally and blindly obeys: that there is no such thing as an Open society. If I were to claim that, “All ideas/beliefs are equal” in an attempt to atten the hierarchy of ideas/beliefs as Locke, Popper, Paine, Soros, and all modernists attempt(ed) to do under the guise of

)

fl

fi

76

?

6

repeated over and over again that this sort of extrapolation is imprecise or inaccurate, but

impartiality, indi erence, and “equal love,” I run into this same paradox that de nes the Open society. Namely, in aiming to atten the hierarchy of ideas, I have inadvertently constructed my own. I have made the idea/belief that, “All ideas/beliefs are equal” superior to a other ideas/beliefs. I have constructed my own pyramid, where the idea/belief of equality is the monarch, superior over all, with authority over a : where the idea is god. In a system that believes all people to be equal, what is done to the man that believes people are unequal? In a system that gives to its people freedom of religion, what is done to the religions that don’t believe in eedom of religion? The “ eedom of religion” itself becomes the religion, and the only religions that are allowed are the religions that capitulate on their values and mold themselves to t within the constraints of that absolute boundary, religions that abandon their God and worship the idol god of Individualism, that abandon their covenant with their God and worship the covenant of the modern god, the Constitution of the god of Individualism. Only in such a system can the beliefs of other religions be ridiculed without recourse, can prophets and messiahs be degraded and mocked: for the religion of desecrating other religions obeys the laws of freedom of religion, but the religion that stands up for itself, that defends itself, breaks the law. The hypocrisy of modern society is that it claims not to believe in God, not to have any religion, but all the while assert upon the entire world its own dogmatic and totalitarian god and religion...There can be no such thing as “freedom of religion,” “universal" values, natural rights for a faithless society. Verily, a faithless society is headed for nothing but self-destruction, for it does not even have faith in itself. God is the contradiction that solves a contradictions, the paradox that solves a paradoxes.. 7

.

ll

ll

fi

l

ll

fl

fr

ff

fi

fr

77

of tolerance, but he never follows through fully, for if he had, he would have outed himself as the very criminal he was condemning... He would have revealed that his open society was nothing more than a closed society, but with none of the traditional and necessary elements for continuance, and what more, that it had no root in something divine, in revelation, and not even in the reasoning of man that he himself concedes as imperfect and uncertain: he would have revealed that his Open society was nothing more than a closed society constructed as an inversion of Closed societies, a denial/rejection of Closed societies built upon the super uous and disobedient desire to create one’s own god as oneself, to change the rules of nature. In short, to become god

This leads us naturally to the paradox of secularism, a paradox of the same avor of that as the Open society, one that is born from the inability to understand the distinction between faith and reason. Reason leads to the self-destruction of reason: the conclusion of reason is nihilism: there is no reason to reason. Reason alone cannot lead to value judgements. Although for some this is a repetition of what has been known for over millennia now, it is still abundantly clear that this knowledge is in the possession of the minority. One must always take some presuppositional belief, a judgement taken to be self-evident, in order to evaluate wether or not something is right or wrong, good or evil. Strauss reiterates this very conclusion, this paradox of secularism, one that every individual reaches if they forge far enough into an inquiry of political philosophy “According to a very widespread view, all knowledge which deserves the name is scienti c knowledge; but scienti c knowledge cannot validate value judgments; it is

fl

:

.

fi

fl

78

fi

8

Popper notes the beginning traces of this impossibility of an open society with his paradox

judgments can be rationally validated. “The facts, understood as historical processes, indeed do not teach us anything regarding values, and the consequence of the abandonment of moral principle proper was that value judgments have no objective support whatsoever. To spell this out with the necessary clarity—although one knows this from the study of the social sciences—the values of barbarism and cannibalism are as defensible as those of civilization. It is the case that scienti c knowledge cannot validate value judgements, yet secularism, modern political philosophy, operates on the erroneous presupposition that value judgements can be rationally discovered, and with this lack of understanding of the distinction between faith and reason, revelation and rationality, the modern man stands on a contradiction, a paradox, a hypocrisy, asserting his own irrational presuppositions as universal and superior. True secularism, like true atheism and nihilism, is nonexistence, and nonexistence is the end of the path of modern progress.

To provide an example of di ering ideas of good and rationality’s inability to determine value judgements, although Strauss just provided the rather extreme case of barbarism in relation to civilization, consider the most recent Supreme Court ruling against a rmative action. The judges who ruled in annulling AA did so upon the basis of blind justice: equal treatment. The judges who ruled in the negative did so upon the basis of “equitable” justice: unequal treatment. They were fundamentally split over two separate rationally formulated de nitions of equality and justice. At its very core, to even make a claim of right or wrong, one pulls from some foundational ethical system within them that is, and can only be,

”

ffi



”

ff

fi

79

fi

9

limited to factual judgments; yet political philosophy presupposes that value

who is indi erent to all things, the man with the “common sense” of Thomas Paine, the man who believes in the freedom and equality of all things: otherwise, he would have to give freedom and equality to the very things that would end freedom and equality... Of course, this man can circumvent this paradox by constructing another to shoddily mask it: the paradox of tolerance, but then he reveals himself to be a worshipper of “indi erence.” The creed of “mind thine own concerns” is the formula for societal self-destruction 1 The modern man believes equality is good but this is precisely because the presupposition that it is self-evident has been repeatedly socially conditioned into him in all areas: school, media, shows, movies, sports, companies, and even in “churches.” So strong is the conditioning that for the modern man it has become impossible to question it. In every avenue of life, in every judgement and decision, this is the foundational axiom upon which he conducts his ethical reasoning. Something is good if and only if it is in line with the values of Individualism. Popper, Fukuyama, Soros — the entire legion of modern Pharisees — possess the same presupposition, reasoning on what was passed onto them by the Enlightenment thinkers, who also reasoned on the basis of certain presumptions. Truly, the rst man to recognize the paradox of secularism was Nietzsche: he proved that the so called “pure rationality” of the “enlightened” mind was nothing of the sort, that these thinkers too had their own presuppositions and value judgements taken to be true without inquiry, and that their reasoning was done purely upon the basis of a set of value judgements inherited from Judaeo-Christianity. Strauss himself also dictated this same truth, leading to his diagnosis of the crisis of modernity

ff

.

:

ff

80

0

fi

rooted in faith. One evaluates reality upon that basis, and there is no such thing as the man

“Secularization means, then, the preservation of thoughts, feelings, or habits of biblical origin after the loss or atrophy of biblical faith. Strauss summarizes the ndings of Nietzsche as such “Modern rationalism rejected biblical theology and replaced it by such things as deism, pantheism, and atheism. But in this process, biblical morality was in a way preserved. Goodness was still believed to consist in something like justice, benevolence, love, or charity; and modern rationalism has generated a tendency to believe that this biblical morality is better preserved if it is divorced from biblical theology.15 Now this was, of course, more visible in the nineteenth century than it is today; it is no longer so visible today because one crucial event happened between 1870 and 1880: the appearance of Nietzsche. Nietzsche's criticism can be reduced to one proposition: modern man has been trying to preserve biblical morality while abandoning biblical faith. That is, secularism, the “separation of religion” from some institution is neither true nor possible. True secularism is death: nonexistence. True secularism would have to abandon the very irrational and unprovable claim that life is more valuable than death, and therefore, self destruct. There cannot be, nor was there ever, any secularism in the West. These modern values nd their origin in the faith separated from God: faith put into the values themselves instead of God 1 There is no such thing as secularism: there is only the super uous separation from religious tradition and culture with a retention of the beliefs that categorize the very religion upon

15

This taken from Hegel’s perspective on Christianity

”

”

fl

:

fi

.

fi

1

81

which the separation occurs hidden by the shallow veneer of the “power of reason.” Chaplin’s Final Speech nds us with a new perspective on reason “Let us ght for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! In the name of democracy, let us all unite! What is happiness? Even such a small point requires extensive forays into the philosophy of man, religion, and politics, and subjectivism as an answer enables only the happiness of cannibals and pedophiles at the expense of true freedom and virtue. One claims to be a “rationalist,” but forgets to realize that all that his rationality is applied to is that which is rooted in faith, in revelation. The value judgements of equality, freedom, independence — Individualism — originate from the pillars of Western religion. These pillars make up the foundational axioms of Western society, the rationale we use to assert a universal code of ethics in the same way the religious man asserts his God as the only God. The Western world itself is built on a paradox, a contradiction, a hypocrisy, and what we are witnessing today in the modern world is the only natural conclusion of the crisis of a society rooted in hypocrisy, the product of the chemical reaction between reason and revelation: a Nihilism that can only lead to self-destruction. 1 If we return to the advent of political “secularism,” we reach the United “Individuals” of America, a political framework that was constructed from a synthesis of the emergent beliefs of equality, freedom, and independence inspired by the “rationalists” of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment itself is often called “The Age of Reason” and is de ned by Britannica as a period in which it was thought that, “human reasoning could discover truths about the world, religion, and politics and could be used to improve the lives of

fi

”

:

fi

fi

2

82

humankind.” I contend that the Enlightenment was not “The Age of Reason,” but rather, “The Denial of Revelation.” The Enlightenment was not a step forward or progress, as Popper might say, and rather, it was an inversion. An inversion of reality as such, a rejection of reality as such, a ipping of reality as such, made to appear as progress, only possible through the political upheaval of a revolution. The process of all the inversions: Collectivism into Individualism, nature by nurture, duty into freedom, the Father into the Mother. Historicism used as a masquerade to construct history as a linear line, to give it an endpoint, and Individualism placed at that end-point, as some achievement of rationality, as the ultimate truth. Only with the belief of humans as ends can the world be viewed as the means, the means towards some endpoint, some goal for humanity. All that the modern man values is merely the opposite of what his forefathers valued, an inversion from the ancestral tradition of the past. The modern man believes the opposite of all that enabled mankind to survive and proliferate for hundreds of thousands of years. Modern behavior then, can be understood as behavior that is directly against life itself, against the very necessities that have enabled us to persist as a species for this long. The modern man is like a sh out water, a sh that believes the water itself to be corrosive, and the dry land it is dying upon to be his salvation. A sh that wants to y, never realizing that the sensation of ight could only ever be felt in the gravity of the water. The destiny of Modernity is self-destruction: its ending was laid out in its beginning — its ending is its beginning. This is what is meant by the phrase “Suicide of the West. 1 This leads us to the sheer absurdity of the modern man’s rational claim of the superiority of Individualism, freedom, equality, independence, and the truly empty de nition of progress.

fi

fi

fl

fl

”

fl

fi

fi

3

83

The basis upon which the modern world has been transformed into a degenerative heap of moral disobedience is revealed to be rooted in a relativity of truth that must give the same value to a forms of moral behavior and all traditions: of course, this paradox it overcomes with another: there is no “step” towards an open society, just a closed society poorly disguised to appear as such, dictated by “universal” values that just so happen to a rm subjectivity, that make pluralism itself into a monism, and use a paradox to silence those who, as is their individualist right, disagree... The modern man has no actual rational basis to criticize the killing of others based on some form prejudice, nor can he argue for the policy of love and tolerance: he can argue for nothing. The “open” society is merely the delusion of men convinced by the sentimentality of stories of revolution, a viewpoint of the world obtained from a secular view of biblical tradition and writing, and it is upon the writings of a few men enamored by a future of “freedom” and “equality” that the Western world destroys itself from within. Liberation is merely another word for disobedience, disobedience by the child against the father, and it is this disobedience that characterized the Fall of Man and will come to characterize the “Fall of the West. 1 In order to be clear and without refrain from painting the full picture, I must register the entire perspectives of Strauss and Popper on this secularization of faith. Popper does not state that the revolution of Individualism was solely a consequence of the rationality of the Enlightenment, but rather, as a revolution that began in Ancient Greece and has been ongoing ever since “Our western civilization originated with the Greeks. They made the step from tribalism to humanitarianism

ffi

”

”

:

l

4

84

“Thus when we say that our western civilization comes from the Greeks, we ought to be clear what that means. It means that the Greek began that greatest of all revolutions, a revolution which started just yesterday, as it were, for we are still in its initial stage the transition from the closed to the open society. Popper is truthful at the very least when he characterizes this movement as a “revolution,” as it was the revolutions of Europe and America that established the rst political frameworks of Individualism on Earth. Strauss himself somewhat echoes this same distinction through the questioning of Plato “According to a very common notion, modernity is secularized biblical faith; the otherworldly biblical faith has become radically this-worldly. Most simply: not to hope for life in heaven but to establish heaven on earth by purely human means. But this is exactly what Plato claims to do in his Republic: to bring about the cessation of all evil on earth by purely human means. And surely Plato cannot be said to have secularized biblical faith. This construction of heaven, the “Immanetization of the Eschaton” as Voegelin16 would say, is essentially the establishment of the Open society, the full consistent political actualization of the social structure of Individualism, an end for history achieved through the process of “Progress” characterized by a massive revolution against all physical and abstract personi cations of authority. Although Strauss mentions an ostensible contradiction regarding the notion of secularization (a contradiction that the ending of this book solves), he does not make the same error as Popper: he includes the study of biblical knowledge in his conceptualizations of history, historicism, and political philosophy, and as such, recognizes the logical contradiction upon which the concept “progress” stands. Perhaps it

16

The New Science of Politics by Eric Voegelin

”

fi

“

:

fi

85

was simply a grand oversight by Popper to refrain from speaking about the truths in his own religion, that Strauss clearly incorporated, and the roots of human rights that the modern man so staunchly defends, or perhaps, there was a di erent reason. Perhaps Popper refused to discuss Judaism and its importance in regard to these truths because he so vainly wanted to distance himself from the truth that all matters of value judgement are rooted in faith. Popper denied the historicism of his contemporaries while a rming it himself, sketching a line of “progress” rooted in “pure rationality” from the Greeks all the way to the modern day, all the way claiming “History has no meaning,” and establishing the endpoint as the very one created by a secular view of Judaism without ever referencing it — but certainly, there was no bashfulness on his part on discussing Christianity. Could it be that Popper is the modern version of the Plato he vili ed? The inversion of Plato as the modern Plato? 1 Where Popper fails, Strauss succeeds. It is in his account of history and the goal of progress that Judaism are discussed at length. It is Strauss who dictates this concept of “return” that has been the transient de nition of the historicism of modernity "Repentance is return; redemption is restoration. A perfect beginning—the faithful city—is followed by defection, decline, sin; and this is followed by a perfect end. But the perfect end is the restoration of the perfect beginning: the faithful city at the beginning and at the end. At the beginning, men did not roam a forest left to themselves, unprotected and unguided. The beginning is the garden of Eden. Perfection results in the beginning—in the beginning of time, the oldest time. Hence perfection is sought derivatively in the old time—in the father, the father of fathers, the patriarchs...The life of the Jew is the life of recollection...

”

:

ffi

ff

fi

fi

5

86

Indeed, Strauss “hits the mark” here, and it his life, and the life of every Jew, that is spent in recollection of this restoration of the beginning. Verily, all that has ever been known as “progress” to the modern man has always been this concept of return: all that has ever been known as “up” has always been “down.” The Enlightenment was no age of Reason, nor was it a full denial of Revelation: the Enlightenment was the secularization of Judaism, the application of Greek rationality to Judaic revelation, the synthesis between Athens and Jerusalem “Of these experiences the broadest and deepest, as far as we Western men are concerned, are indicated by the names of the two cities Jerusalem and Athens. Western man became what he is and is what he is through the coming together of biblical faith and Greek thought. In order to understand ourselves and to illuminate our trackless way into the future, we must understand Jerusalem and Athens. “The crisis of modernity on which we have been re ecting leads to the suggestion that we should return. But return to what? Obviously, to Western civilization in its premodern integrity, to the principles of Western civilization. Yet there is a di culty here, because Western civilization consists of two elements, has two roots, which are in radical disagreement with each other. We may call these elements, as I have done elsewhere, Jerusalem and Athens, or, to speak in non-metaphorical language, the Bible and Greek philosophy. Secularized Judaism is the project of ending the cyclical nature of mankind and returning to eternity... This ending of Modernity we have sought in this book has always been the beginning.. 1

.

”

ffi

fl

”

:

6

87

To reiterate then, reason alone cannot lead to value judgements: there is no reason to reason. Strauss paints the conclusion of this thought for modernity beautifully “After we have been reduced to a condition in which the maxims of the heartless voluptuary as well as those of the sentimental philistine have to be regarded as no less defensible than those of the idealist, of the gentleman, or of the saint? We cannot take seriously this belated insistence on responsibility and sanity, this inconsistent concern with consistency, this irrational praise of rationality. This condition of Nihilism has already infected the modern man. The political historicist naturally has the objective of discerning from where exactly the modern evaluations of good and evil arise, as pure rationality can lead us nowhere but to the Suicide of the West. The origin of Individualism is not a rational discovery, nor is the open society a rational pursuit; they are historicist concepts inherited from the method of rationality of the Greeks and applied selectively to Judaism in order to construct a modern God, a God that has promised the covenant “Progress.” Secularism is a paradox, it cannot exist as the secular man is the nonexistent man, and the open society is simply the goal of the evangelists of the religion and dogma of modernity to enforce their beliefs upon the rest of the world, beliefs that require the inversion of all that can be called “natural” concerning the organism type with nomenclature “human.” Paine’s own words echo this necessity for universalization 300 years before the Open society advocates “The laws of every country must be analogous to some common principle. It just so happens that reason alone cannot lead to such a common principle: Paine’s common sense is a paradox. The only thing that man can make universal through the use of reason is that there is no universal. The rational notions of this inversion may have roots in Athens, but

”

:

”

:

88

above all, their historicist context and political upheaval are obtained from Jerusalem. In order to arrive at the “ending” for the West, the true goal of progress, we must return to the very beginning..

.

89

90

91

Chapter Fou The Beginnin

g

r

92

other authorities, and it is this authority the modern man calls Individualism: it is Him that all men are under, that all men are made into gods. This inversion nds its origin not in the philosophical inquiries of ancient Greece and the Athenian “Great Generation,” but rather in the narrative of the Hebrew's journey to freedom: Exodus

Exodus is the story of the liberation of Hebrew slaves from the oppressive rule of the Egyptian pharaoh achieved through the strength of the God Yahweh and His covenant. In essence, it symbolizes the emancipation of an oppressed minority from the totalitarian authority of a divine Patriarch that is the representation of the majority. With this fundamental understanding of the story, one can draw parallels to numerous other historical narratives of revolution: Exodus itself stands as the earliest example of a revolution in recorded history, serving as a blueprint for all subsequent political inversions. Michael Walzer writes in Exodus and Revolution “Indeed, revolution has often been imagined as an enactment of the Exodus and the Exodus has often been imagined as a program for revolution. The society depicted in ancient Egypt aligns with what Plato and the modern Plato would both describe as a collectivist, holistic society. Ancient Egypt is among the earliest examples of human communities founded upon the principles of the family unit. It epitomizes a closed society, where justice is perceived not in the conventional sense of equality but rather in the ancestral sense of duty, a concept born from the family that evolved into the collective. In such a society, absolute authority is centralized and the collective entity takes

”

fi

.

93

:

1

2

The modern notion of Individualism is the worship of an authority that frees man from all

its individual members. The analogy that has been used to describe closed societies ts most aptly in this rst of closed societies: a Pyramid of authority where the divine Patriarch reigns at the top, the “Most High,” the cosmically divine at the entrance to the Heavens, with all others cascading downwards in decreasing levels of worth but increasing levels of quantity: the ascension of Collectivism in contrast to the atness of Individualism. The embodiment of the spirit of Ancient Egypt was the very physical construction of the Pyramid itself — among all of the rst civilizations, the structure of the pyramid is the architectural height of society: the Ziggurat of the Mesopotamians and Sumerians, the pyramid-temples of the Maya, the Nubian pyramids of the Nubians, the stupas of the Ancient Indians. The architectural articulation of one’s faith and ancestral tradition in pyramids among ancient civilizations is no coincidence: they were representations and reverences of the structure of society, the natural order, that enabled civilization, and were constructed in the great ancestral tradition of gratitude, indebtedness, and duty to one’s forefathers: they were representations of the co ective itself, the collective itself of ultimate value. The modern man, however, hates his forefathers and the co ective...

The Pyramids of Egypt are the ideal representation of the pyramid of a closed society. It was this closed structure of society that relegated the original Hebrews to the social caste of the bottom/tail/slavery, and it was against this closed structure that they revolted. The Exodus of the Hebrews is the ideal representation of the formula for inversion that has been characteristic of the process of progress unique to the 3000 year project known as the West, a formula that has seen itself replicated time and time again, and it is here that it can be said

fi

fl



ll

ll

fi

94

fi

3

precedence over its individual components, the same way the family takes precedence over

that the West begins. How is it that the Hebrews freed themselves from the Pyramid of Egypt, from the authority of a divine Patriarch? An inversion of the social structure through the Covenant of God. The inversion that freed the Hebrews was the same inversion that marked the shift from Collectivism to Individualism, from nature to nurture, from a closed society to the “progress” towards an open society. Verily, it is not in Greece we nd this “step” towards Individualism, but among the original Hebrews, 800 years before the life of Plato. Where does the belief that man has “natural” rights emerge from? Verily, among every civilization on Earth, what has always been considered natural has been the unequal relationship not only between man and woman, but man and man: master and slave. This conception is not unique to Plato, but present in every Ancient law and political philosophy on Earth ranging from the ancient Indian Law of Manu, to the laws of Confucius, and the age of the Greeks “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” (Aristotle, Politics “I legislate with a view to what is best for the whole state...for I justly place the interests of the individual on an inferior level of value.” (Plato A way of understanding a structure of hierarchy is through the analogy of the human body: the ruler as the head, the priests as the eyes, the warriors as the arms, and the commoners as the body. This relates precisely the natural existence of humans: as interdependent organisms operating in service of the Superorganism that is the collective and that ensures the survival of the collective, physically represented by the pyramid. That is, the human body is a superorganism in the same way a society is a superorganism. Edward Osborne Wilson

fi

)

)

:

95

corroborates this idea through his theory on Superorganisms. Wilson was an American biologist, naturalist, and writer who was prominent in the eld of biology, particularly in the study of ants and social insects, as well as in the development of sociobiology and biodiversity conservation. Following from his work, there is the theory that primitive human societies themselves were superorganism, but I do not purport this as a theory but as truth. Imagine the cells of the human body, all working in conjunction and interdependent — but not equal. The cells exist in a pyramid of hierarchy of separation function and value, all performing their duties to the collective, their identity and purpose determined by that duty (a heart cell is precisely a heart cell because it is a heart cell), the pyramid itself a representation of the collective body: the superorganism. Towards the bottom of caste are the skin cells and hair cells, cells that are of relative unimportance for the continued survival of the whole. In contrast, higher up the caste are heart cells, nerve cells, and other such cells whose loss would yield and signi cant actual damage to the body as a whole. And at the very top, the small collection of cells that authoritatively dictate the movement of the entire body, that operate as and under the divine construct ‘I,’ a construct that verily echoes the words of Yahweh to Moses in Exodus: “I AM THAT I AM “I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE It should be noted that stem cells can become any type of cell, but once a cell has a role, it cannot change its role: a heart cell cannot become a nerve cell. Now imagine that the slave cells of the body revolt against this small authoritative cluster of cells in the brain and reject their duty in order to be liberated and autonomous in their existence— that is, imagine Individualism for the human body. No longer will the fruits of the labor of others be consumed

fi

”



”

fi

96

the parts obey their duty to the whole. No longer wi the organism known as the human body exist... That is, for the very Superorganism known as the homo-sapien, Individualism, disobedience to the brain, is a virus that can lead to nothing but self-destruction. The same is true for Individualism of the superorganistic structure known as society: Individualism destroys all collectives, communities, and families by freeing the “cells” from their duties in the name of “Freedom.” Individualism itself is the cancer of mankind, a disease we have been battling for 3000 years. The logical question then is, “What is the antidote?

Before moving forward with Exodus, let us play around with this analogy further. As this has been a book of logical conclusions, what would be the logical conclusion of Individualism for the cells after Individualism for the body? Individualism for the cell is liberation of the parts of the cell that are enslaved to the authority of the superorganism that is the cell: liberation of the organic material that makes up the cell: the nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids. Then, Individualism makes it way to these very parts, as it must. What sort of inconsistent ideology would Individualism be if it denied the right of freedom, equality, and independence to anything? What is this term “human" you are tossing around? We have surpassed the anthropocentric ego-centricity of our forefathers! We are superior to them! The past is full of nothing but the evil tribalism of large organic structures! “Human” is merely a term of hate and discrimination against smaller organic groupings! And “cell” is a merely a derogative term used to belittle the right to individuality to nucleic acids, proteins, and other even smaller organic groupings! And what more, these super uous discriminatory terms of separation, “nucleic acid,” “protein,” “lipid,” are all relics of the biologism of the

”

fl

97

ll

4

by the few, no longer will the subordinate answer to the will of the Ordinate, no longer will

with the patriarchy of the organic grouping! And while we are at it, in order to achieve consistency, what sort of insensitive individuals are we to only give individuality to organic entities? What is this “organicism,” this discrimination against death and inorganic matter of our age, this concession to the authority of organic entities? Are we not “enlightened,” elevated above our foolish and bigoted ancestors? Liberation of the inorganic from the authority of the organic! At long last, freedom for that which has been oppressed for millions of years, freedom for the molecule! What, there is something that even the molecule oppresses? Some form of totalitarian authority that still exists in this heaven we have constructed? Freedom for the Atom! Freedom for the Atom! Freedom for the Adam..

In Exodus, the Hebrew slaves freed themselves from the collectivist Pyramid of Egypt through the religious construction of Individualism: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27 Only through the belief that man is created in the image of God can the belief in the inherent worth of the individual emerge, could the “self-evident” belief in equality emerge. Thomas Cahill echoes this in his book The Gi of the Jews which discusses the paramount and civilizational signi cance of the Jewish faith on the modern world — verily, he characterizes the modern world as deriving its entire essence of character, behavior, and mentality of justice from Judaism:

.

)

ft



98

fi

5

past...down with the patriarchy of the body! Down with the patriarchy of the cell! Down

created equal” without the intervention of the Jews.”17 “We are the undeserving recipients of this history of the Jews, this long, excessive, miraculous development of ethical monotheism without which our ideas of equality and personalism are unlikely ever to have come into being and surely would never have matured in the way that they have. Moreover, only through this belief can a collectivist structure of society, rooted in the denial of the inherent worth of the individual, be toppled and inverted. The Hebrews, once enslaved, were considered means to an end. The inversion lies precisely in transforming the Hebrews from mere means or slaves into ends in themselves: into individuals. However, it is essential to recognize one signi cant oversight in this statement: the concept that it was not solely slaves who were means to an end. In a collective society, a people are means to an end, with their duty directed toward the collective itself, the collectives as the end, symbolized through the image of the Pyramid. Judaism did not liberate only the slaves from Collectivism; it extended its liberation to all of “humankind.” It elevated all individuals to the status of ends in themselves, recognizing them as people created in the image of God. This is what is meant by the “Gift of the Jews.” What happens when all are transformed into ends in themselves? The world itself becomes the means — a conduit towards some end. In other words, that which was once eternally cyclical, the yin and yang of existence and history itself, is given a purpose, a destiny. The earth serves as the means toward the Holy Land, toward Zion, toward Heaven on Earth for the end that is the Hebrew..

In line with this, there is no way it could have ever been “self-evident that all men and women are created equal” without the intervention of the Jews... 17

.

ll

”

99

fi

6

“There is no way that it could ever have been “self-evident that all men are

To reiterate, the process of liberation for the Hebrews was an inversion of socio-political structure, of justice itself. It was done through ostensibly providing equality to all of mankind through the belief of man created in the image of God, making all into ends in themselves, though those who are perceptive will notice that the inheritors of this belief, the Jews themselves, did not extend equality to all people, unequally treating the “gentiles,” “goyim,” “non-Jew,” but all in due time: one will come to understand that the paradox of modernity is synonymous with Judaism... As a consequence of this transformation through inversion, reality and the world itself are made into means for the end that is humanity: history is given a destination, a destiny. Canonically, the precise inversion is explicated by Deuteronomy 27:13-15 “The Lord will make you the head, not the tail; you will always be at the top and never at the bottom--if only you obey and faithfully observe the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you this day...But if you do not obey the Lord your God to observe faithfully all His commandments and laws which I enjoin upon you this day, all these curses shall come upon you and take e ect... What else but the hierarchy of Egypt can be understood to be referenced here by the verbiage of “head”/“tail and “top”/“bottom”? Up until their liberation by Yahweh, the Hebrews were the bottom, the tail, and it was only through the divine power of God that this structure could be inverted, could the pyramid be ipped. If that which was the bottom is made into the top, and that which was the top is made into the bottom, then one has constructed the symbol of the upside down pyramid, the pyramid of Inversion:

”

fl

ff

:

100

natural order:

Then the symbolism of the Star of David is made clear: the superimposition of the Pyramid of Egypt and the Pyramid of Inversion, the symbolization of the head becoming the tail and the tail becoming the head:

The origin of Judaic morality lies in this very act of Inversion: the collectivist structure of society, the family oriented structure of society, is ipped into the individualist structure of society, the individual oriented structure of society. The story of Exodus is the narrative expression of the liberation of the Hebrews, symbolized by the Star of David inherited from the Seal of Solomon. It is the assertion of Individualism against a natural world ruled by natural law and natural hierarchy. It is the birth of modern morality — “justice,” equality, freedom, independence, Individualism — the inversion of natural morality, natural selection, into Judaic morality, unnatural selection. From the natural order of the pyramid, the unnatural

101

fl

7

And if one recognizes that the symbol of Egypt as the upright Pyramid, the pyramid of

order of the star is created. This unnatural order is actualized through the behavioral conditioning of Individualism, a morality rooted equalizing all members of a society. That is, Judaic morality is not only necessarily a morality for the minority, but it is the very formula for the empowerment of the minority, and it is this formula that dominates the ideological scene of the Western world today. How is it that a majority can be usurped politically, ideologically, and culturally by a minority? How can the collective be toppled? Only if the majority believes in a morality that transiently inverts society and topples itself: a morality that gives ultimate value to the minority. The origin of Judaism is conveyed as a revolution, as revolutions are physically just con icts, but politically, inversions that ip the value judgements associated with the highest and lowest: that make the last into the rst and the rst into the last, that make the lowest the authority, therefore ipping the pyramid and making the collective worthless. A House ipped on itself cannot stand. This is the method of Individualism: Exodus. The Judaic revolution was an inversion that occurred religiously, that utilized morality as a means of ipping valuations and reinterpreting reality, that made the collective valueless and the individual of ultimate worth, and it is this same revolution that is ongoing in America and the West at large today. Jewish morality’s origin is speci cally in valuing, in empowering, the most marginalized and devalued population and, accordingly nds itself in the morality of all oppressed groups of people. Exodus, as a guiding philosophy, has been a continuous historical necessity for the Jewish people themselves; throughout human history they have time and time again found themselves relegated to the lowest rungs of societies, facing injustice and discrimination, and this history culminates in the horrors of the concentration camps during Nazi Germany. It may sound self-evident, but the Jewish people are the most in need of this ideology — a faith that promises them a covenant and a Holy

fi

fi

fi

fi

fl

fl

fl

fl

fl

102

Land where they will occupy the highest position. Exodus is essentially the replacing of the Egyptians with the Hebrews, a ipping of the social positions, done so upon the basis of past injustices and oppression — the construction of a cycle that will eternally repeat until it reaches its natural conclusion: the destruction of all authority structures. The very same ideology the Hebrews used to invert the Egyptians, they use to invert themselves. Perhaps, however, this truth of a constant proclivity to inversion is something that is explained in Exodus. The Hebrews were a people described by God Himself as “sti -necked” and “obstinate.” It is almost as if the rejection of the authority of whatever society they are in was a racial quality, one that even God, Yahweh, himself was not able to overcome as both the Hebrews immediate doubting of their God, and the story of the golden calf demonstrates “Didn’t we say to you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians?’ It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!” (Exodus 14:12 “Come here and make us a god who will go before us, because, as for this fellow Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has become of him.” (Exodus 32:1 “The Lord told Moses, “Go down immediately, because your people whom you led out of Egypt have behaved corruptly. They have been quick to turn aside from the way I commanded them, and they have made for themselves a molten calf. They have bowed down to it in worship, they have o ered sacri ces to it, and they have said, ‘This, Israel, is your god who brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” Then the Lord told Moses, “I’ve seen these people and indeed they’re obstinate. Now let me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may consume them, but I’ll make a great nation of you.”” (Exodus 7-10 Cahill writes

)

)

)

ff

fi

fl

ff

:

:

103

“The Covenant has already been broken—as it were, minutes after it was made. The people are no longer God’s but Moshe’s. God calls them “sti -necked” and he asks Moshe’s leave to destroy them. He will use Moshe alone to “make into a great nation,” as he used Noah after the Flood. Only at the behest of Moses are the Hebrews spared and does God change his mind, but how is it that a people could come to rebel against the very God that freed them their enslavement? Why is there a such a strong proclivity among Hebrews to dissent to authority, even among themselves? What occurs to the Authority that frees a people that hate all authority from an authority? Will this new Authority not also be disobeyed? And does this not diverge the ideology into two points?18 On one side, the ideology leads towards the destruction of all authority, and on the other, it leads to the desire to become the Highest Authority... Jewish people are the greatest Individualists, and as such, they are their own undoing. There is an absolute necessity to the covenant of God — eternal and absolute obedience to Him and only Him — and the super uous desire for an “end” of history, a conclusion of the ideology, is not something that is obtained from God, but rather, from the people who would like to see themselves construct a Heaven on earth, a city that hitherto, only God has dwelled in, and a city that diverges in de nition just as the ideology does...but this is truth that only discerning minds understand, and one that will be revealed in the end of this book. The notion of “Heaven on Earth,” of progress, originates from disobedience to God, disobedience to authority. There is no claim of the afterlife in the Old Testament, and Heaven is speci cally described as the domain of God

Chapter Eight

ff

fi

:

fl

”

104

fi

18

man.” (Psalm 115:16 “‘Thus says the Lord: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?’’” (Isaiah 66:1 If there is no heaven on Earth, then for what purpose would a concept “progress” even exist? Would life not be the internal progress towards Spiritual heaven, rather than some external progress for a Material Heaven...? The truth of a desire for an end for history is the impulse for the construction of God on Earth, the becoming of God by man, an impulse rooted strictly and necessarily in the dissent towards authority and born from making history into a means towards an end where a authority is abolished. It is revolt of the child against the Father, for only when man is God, is he truly free, equal, and independent: is he truly liberated from a notions of authority. When man is obedient to no-one but himself the circle of Individualism is completed, the divergence converges.. “Blind obedience to authority would be r placed by rational self-government, in which all men, free and equal, would have to obey no masters but themselves.” (Fukuyama The obstinacy of the Hebrews can itself be understood retrospectively as their individualist nature. Their inability to follow any authority stems from this ideology that seeks to make man his own master, his own slave, his own god.

To elaborate, what is this Holy Land, this end for history? The conclusion of Individualism. A world where a are equal — a classless world — where the individual is truly of highest value, where the only authority over the freedom of the individual is the very authority that enables his freedom — eventually, the individual becomes recursive as an authority, isolated

)

)

.

e­



ll

)

ll

105

ll

8

“The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth he has given to the children of

the revelation of Judaism results in the belief that there is no God, and therefore, the covenant that God promised must be ful

ed by man himself. The Exodus from Egypt results

in the Exodus om God, therefore leading to the desire to become god. The logical conclusion of Individualism must be reached, as the revelatory conclusion can only await man in death (ironically, the logical conclusion of Individualism leads him precisely to that death). Once man stops believing in God, it becomes his quest to make reality into what God himself represents: perfection. What does man consider to be the endpoint of human e ort and thought, the nal culmination of rationality, perfection itself? Liberal democracy founded on Individualism. What is the name for a society that has achieved full consistency with this political ideology? The Open society, liberal democracy and Individualism fully actualized

The transformation of history from cyclical to linear is what founds the post-enlightenment historicist notion of an end, and it is what also what creates the belief that the future is superior to the present and the past: it is what creates the idea of progress, a society at the end of all societies. The cyclical view is one that posits the equality of history rather than man, and establishes an eternity of reoccurrence — the inversion of man into an end necessarily requires this transformation of history from a cycle into a seemingly linear line. The historicism of thinkers of the modern day, Marx, Fukuyama, Popper (even though he criticizes historicism, it is revealed that he is a proponent of it himself: the judge as the criminal) nds its root in the Judaic inversion of history. The realization of the ultimate end to which the human race is deferred to the future, and it is the man’s worldly purpose to bring about a redemption for all creation. This is what is meant by the Messianic Ideal in

.

ff

ll

fi

fr

fi

106

fi

9

into nonexistence. Why is this the case? The application of the rationality of Athens onto

history. The progressive mind views the past as evil, as tribalistic and barbarian, but the Judaic man, from whom the progressive acquires his value judgements, views the past as superior. The return to the land of Israel is not the end but the return to the beginning. That is, modern progress, the end of human history, is an idea inherited speci ca y om Judaism and it is not a linear path towards some “perfect” future, but a return to the perfect beginning. It is the Jewish, and now modern, man’s (the modern man is in all matters social and political, Jewish - the belief that the modern world is Christian or even Judeo-Christian is a foolish oversight, individualism cannot be united with altruism) purpose to return to the beginning 1 The phrase Tikkun Olam reiterates upon us this very understanding: “Today, tikkun olam — Hebrew for "repairing the world" — is ubiquitous. Many American Jews consider it a cornerstone of their Jewish identity, a key reason they're committed to making the world a better place.” (Jonathan Krasner, The Jewish Experience Tikkun Olam can be understood as the concept of “Bringing Heaven onto Earth,” or, as Voegelin would put it, “Immanetizing the Eschaton.” It is the Jewish phrase imparting upon us the notion of “return” for the political idea of “progress.” It doesn’t appear in Hebrew discourse until the rst millennium C.E., and it only started gaining more traction in the Western world until the 1970s and 80s among "secular” factions of Judaism. Once again, there is no explicit reference to the afterlife in the Old Testament: Heaven is described as the domain of God. Judaism is a religion that is interested with the Earth, not Heaven, and it is in light of this that the responsibility of the Jew emerges. The idea of Tikkun Olam, progressing towards Heaven, is said to have its roots in two excerpts from Isaiah

)

.

:

fr

ll

fi



fi

0

107

“I’ve called you in righteousness. I’ll take hold of your hand. I’ll preserve you and appoint you as a covenant to the people, as a light for the nations, to open blind eyes and to bring out those who are bound from their cells, and those sitting in darkness from prison.”(Isaiah 42:6-7) “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Israel and bring back those of Jacob I have preserved I’ll also make you as a light to the nations, to be my salvation to the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6 A city, a society, to serve as the “light” for all other nations, the beacon of The Just society, that all societies must follow. This is the biblical root of the Open society. Cahill con rms as such “In Isaiah’s vision, true faith is no longer con ned to one nation, but “all the nations” stream to the House of Yahweh It is a necessity that such a city/society include a of the World. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch is widely recognized for his work towards Tikkun Olam, and his writing re ects this “universalism” of Judaism “The more, indeed, Judaism comprises the whole of man and extends its declared mission to the salvation of the whole of mankind, the less it is possible to con ne its outlook to the synagogue. [Thus] the more the Jew is a Jew, the more universalist will be his views and aspirations [and] the less aloof will he be from ... art or science, culture or education ... [and] the more joyfully will he applaud whenever he sees truth and justice and peace and the ennoblement of man. The Open society must include all societies — it must be universal. The “salvation of the whole of mankind” is a necessity for the Jewish project: it is essentially the making of the whole world Jewish. Dr. Judith Bleich characterized Herschel’s e orts

:

fi

fl

:

ff

)

”

fi

ll

”



:

fi

108

“[Hirsch aimed at] nothing less than transformation of the entire Jewish community and ultimately, the molding of society at large in its moral image (tikkun olam).” ("Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Ish al Ha'edah The phrase that accompanies every supplication of Jewish responsibility “It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it.”(Pirkei Avot 2:21) In this light, even the secular and atheist Jews (inconceivable how such a thing can exist: can there be “atheist Muslims” or “atheist Christians?”)can be considered to be performing their duty: can be considered to be Jewish. And in this light, even non-Jews, the progressives of modernity, can be considered Jewish. Reconstructionist Judaism, developed by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, views Judaism as a “progressively evolving religion,” and re ects this Jewish responsibility to societal change in the direction of “Judaic justice.” The movement itself is positive towards modernity, and this is because the discreet path of modernity can be essentially considered the path of civilizational Judaism — namely, the West itself is the civilizational actualization of the social and political values of Judaism. The West is headed towards the Open society, that is what is meant by progress, and the Open society is merely the society that reaches the end that began with the inversion of Exodus. The growing Reform school of Judaism, a new secular sect of Judaism focused on “progressive” values and “multiculturalism” is evidence of the growing movement of Jews towards secularity while retaining faith based ethical principles. Why is it that there are groups such as Jews for Secular Democracy, Society for Humanistic Judaism, the American Jewish World Service, Repair the World, and Jewish Social Justice Roundtable? All of these groups have in

:

fl

)

.

109

common their emphasis on diversity, equality, inclusion, and “social justice.” The information section for Society for Humanistic Judaism reads “Thankfulness and mindfulness without dogma. Faith in our fellow people. Modern meaning in ancient traditions. Using only the words that match our beliefs. Humanistic values of equality19, honesty, and integrity. Good food. Jewish humor. Links to a fascinating history and peoplehood. Support from like-minded sojourners. Powerful lifecycle events. Rituals to keep us grounded. Rich cultural heritage. Fun holidays. Connection to the natural universe. Ethical values in action. Bringing light through learning and laughter. AND… celebrating our full diversity, including Jewish, Jew-ish, not yet Jewish, never gonna be Jewish; atheist, agnostic, secular, humanist, freethinker, spiritual-not-religious; inmarried, intermarried, interculturally married, single, divorced, nontraditional, polyamorous; multiracial, people of color, all heritages and backgrounds; people with and without disabilities and neurodiversity; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, heterosexual, nonconforming; and all who come in kindness and sincerity! Would the Society for Humanistic Judaism accept Taliban members? Al-qaeda members? Perhaps KKK members? Nazis? Neo-Nazis? We discover what is actually meant by diversity; people who look di erent, but think the same. But this de nition of “diversity” is ironically the true grounding pillar for all societies: cultural homogeneity. People like to think that “white” is some monolithic racial category, when in reality, white is just as racially diverse as black. This to say that societies are founded on people believing the same things, not looking the same. Intermingling of population ensures an eventual racial homogeneity, but that is of no importance. That is, belief founds a society, not race as the “educated” modern When was it “equality” become a “humanistic” value? If we are to use any value metric system that gives worth to values that aid life, equality as a value would be considered evil. 19

fi

:

”

ff

110

might believe. The constantly repeated paradox of the Open society reappears: an Open society is closed. It makes all people into believers of the same thing. Fukuyama’s desire for people to take “pride” in liberal democracy is increasingly realized. The Jews for Secular Democracy have written on their webpage “If you feel that our nation is slipping backwards on issues related to First Amendment protections intended to keep one religion from unduly in uencing government policy, please join your voice with ours! The religion of Individualism, of Judaism, is the greatest in uencer of all modern Western government policy. There is no such thing as secularism. The Open society, progressivism, liberalism, is merely the enforcement of the religion of pseudo-rationalized Judaism on the world, and this movement condemns the idea of a single religion unduly in uencing a nation while simultaneously working towards a system that operates under totalitarian obedience to the religion of Individualism. They condemn the control of a society by one religion, but have not noticed that their e orts are aligned with making the entire world under the A religion, the religion that aims to equalize everything, an aim rooted in hatred towards any and all authority and that necessarily destroys the family: the revolt of the child over the Father. Could there be such a thing as “Christians for Secular Democracy” or “Muslims for Secular Democracy?”(examples of the latter only exist in countries where Muslims are a minority, where they have become Jewish) Jews and modern Judaic thought aligns itself with secularism, liberal democracy, all the tenets of an Open society — inclusivity, diversity, tolerance, equality, equity, “social justice”, etc —, precisely because these ideas are Jewish, for these ideas are the natural o spring of Individualism, the necessary methods towards achieving

ll

fl

fl

fl

:

”

ff

ff

111

consistency with Individualism. It is the claim that Jews are a minority in not only the West but the world at large. How can this be true when most of the West is Jewish? 1 The Jewish ideology has its most potent use in empowering minorities, and as such, it nds itself aligned with every minority group in the West. Today, the most prominent minority group, aside from Jews themselves, is the LGBT. From where does the LGBT nd its origins? Feminism, the freeing of the caste of people that have hitherto always been under the authority of others: feminism is the Exodus of Women. Strength is the principal quality of authority, alongside masculinity — these two things demonized endlessly in the West, and in their place, weakness and e eminateness proliferate. But so be it, some might say. There is no harm in e eminateness and weakness. Such a perspective rejects the belief that the individual has a responsibility to anything besides themselves. Such a perspective already presupposes that freedom is self-evidently good while duty is something that is bad, that God must be abandoned. The weakness of the individual necessarily leads to the degeneration of the social structure and collective at large: Individualism itself the most potent disease against the collective: it is the formula for human decay, it is the cancer of mankind. 1 It is the overarching contention of this book that the origin of Individualism, the framework for the Open society — material Heaven on Earth — and the notion of progress are all secular inheritances of Judaism, and that the grand inversion from nature to nurture, from Collectivism to Individualism, from Father to mother has its root in the method of liberation that the Hebrews used to free themselves from the authority of the divine Patriarch of Egypt. The consequence of this contention is that this inversion is ongoing today.

fi

fi

ff

ff

1

2

112

The Western world was born Jewish, and thus, its mission has become the Jewish mission. We have yet to reach the material end of history posited by the Jewish construction of Individualism — Heaven on Earth, the Open society, where every man is God — and it is also my contention, although this is widely accepted, that the Western revolutions of liberal democracy are political philosophies constructed from the same reasoning that freed the Hebrews, and speci cally that the story of Exodus is their blueprint. Alan Dershowitz’s books The Genesis of Justice: Ten Stories of Biblical Injustices that Led to the Ten Commandments and Rights om Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights argue from the perspective of “secularism” that injustices of the past can be understood as the motivators for the conception of rights: that is, the injustices that the Hebrews faced at the hands of the Egyptians were the motivation for the construction of Judaism, a religion that established a new divine Patriarch that would bear witness to the construction of a new pyramid: the Pyramid of the Individualism — a transmission of the formula for past injustices as the foundation for present morality. Morality, in this light, becomes a competition of who has faced the greatest injustices. Cahill argues that the rise of Jewish monotheism was the intellectual “awakening” of the modern ideas of morals and ethics “The Jews started it all and by “it” I mean so many of the things we care about, the underlying values that make all of us, Jew and gentile, believer and atheist, tick....By “we” I mean the usual “we” of late-twentieth-century writing: the people of the Western world, whose peculiar but vital mentality has come to infect every culture on earth...For better or worse, the role of the West in humanity’s history is singular. Because of this, the role of the Jews, the inventors of Western culture, is also singular

”

:

fi

fr

113

cyclical conception of history that is present in every early civilization; Ma’at(order) and Isfet(chaos) in Ancient Egypt, the four Yugas of India, Yin and Yang in China. Cahill provides a quotation from Henri-Charles Puech to present Greek thought on the matter: “No event is unique, nothing is enacted but once...; every event has been enacted, is enacted, and will be enacted perpetually; the same individuals have appeared, appear, and will appear at every turn of the circle.” He explicates a summary of the concept “In a cyclical world, there are neither beginnings nor ends. The symbology of the circle is self-evident in ancient culture — but it was the Hebrews who ipped this structure on its head, who created an end for human history “The Jews were the rst people to break out of this circle “We are looking here at one of the great turning points in the history of human sensibility—at an enormous value shift. “All religions are cyclical, mythical, and without reference to history as we have come to understand it—all religions except the Judeo-Christian stream in which Western consciousness took life. Progress emerges as a concept “This great, overwhelming movement, exempli ed in the stories of Avraham[Abraham] and Moshe[Moses], makes history real to human consciousness for the rst time—with the future really dependent on what I do in the present. This movement is the movement of time, which, once past, becomes history. But the movement is not like the movement of a wheel, as all other societies had imagined; it is not cyclical,



”

”

:

fi

fi

:

”



”

:

fi

114

fi

fl

It appears it is also Cahill’s contention that Judaism was the rst to break away from the

coming around again and again. Each moment, like each destiny, is unique and unrepeatable. It is a process—it is going somewhere, though no one can say where. And because its end is not yet, it is full of hope—and I am free to imagine that it will not be just process but progress. “the Jews were able to give us the Great Whole, a uni ed universe that makes sense and that, because of its evident superiority as a worldview, completely overwhelms the warring and contradictory phenomena of polytheism. They gave us the Conscience of the West, the belief that this God who is One is not the God of outward show but the “still, small voice” of conscience, the God of compassion, the God who “will be there,” the God who cares about each of his creatures, especially the human beings he created “in his own image,” and that he insists we do the same. And the most important idea within his book: that we as modern men, as Westerners, are, in all but the cultural and ancestral sense of the word, Jewish “We dream Jewish dreams and hope Jewish hopes. Most of our best words, in fact—new, adventure, surprise; unique, individual, person, vocation; time, history, future; freedom, progress, spirit; faith, hope, justice—are the gifts of the Jews. “But it can be demonstrated, as I hope I have done, that the belief system we have come to call Judaism is the origin of the pro[g]essive worldview, the worldview to which all Western people subscribe, a worldview that has now taken hold in many (and, to some extent, all) non-Western societies. This “pro[g]essive worldview” is regularly referred to in history, literature, philosophy, religion, and theology texts and regularly contrasted with its opposite, the “cyclical worldview”

”

”

:

fi

”

”

115

But Cahill goes even further, extrapolating that the modern economic ideologies that dominate the two opposing spheres of the Western world are constructions that have their origin in the blueprint that is Exodus “Beyond these movements, which have commonly taken the Book of Exodus as their blueprint, are other forces that have shaped our world, such as capitalism, communism, and democracy. Capitalism and communism are both bastard children of the Bible, for both are pro[g]essive faiths, modeled on biblical faith and demanding of their adherents that they always hold in their hearts a belief20 in the future and keep before their eyes the vision of a better tomorrow, whether that tomorrow contains a larger gross domestic product or a workers’ paradise Cahill also makes the claim, which is the point of this book, that democracy too, as a political ideology, is an inheritance of Judaism “Democracy, in contrast, grows directly out of the Israelite vision of individuals, subjects of value because they are images of God, each with a unique and personal destiny. There is no way that it could ever have been “self-evident that all men are created equal” without the intervention of the Jews. Clearly, as stated earlier, democracy is the natural political structure of the cancerous ideology of Individualism as it is the only structure that ostensibly gives equal authority to every individual: it is the political expression of Individualism/Judaism. He ends his foray into “the gift of the Jews” with a question to the modern unbeliever

Keyword: “belief ”

”

:

:

”

116

:

20

“Unbelievers might wish to stop for a moment and consider how completely God— this Jewish God of justice and compassion—undergirds all our values and that it is just possible that human e ort without this God is doomed to certain failure. As is demonstrably clear, Cahill was entirely aware of the faith based origin of our modern “rational” values, yet the jump to the crisis of modernity, the nihilism of modernity is never made, for he believes in Judaism “One believes in God, as one believes in a friend—or one believes nothing. At least in respect to the necessity for belief, Cahill is correct, but the paradox of a rational and religious world never crosses his mind. And this because, like Mordecai and his Reconstructionist branch of Judaism, Cahill believes it to be the case that the Western world is Jewish. That we are on the right path, the path of return. For a population of Jews then, there is no quest but redemption and return, and this is a quest not to the end of history, but to the beginning. In theme with paradoxes, this can be considered the greatest paradox of all. By inverting the cyclical perspective of history, the cycle of order and chaos, the “great cycle of the periods,” the Judaic inversion constructs a seemingly linear perspective of history but this is revealed to be a super uous understanding: the end of this history is the redemption of its beginning. The cyclical reoccurrence of history is broken, and One Cycle of History remains: the cycle that can be understood as modernity that has its beginning in the garden of God and its ending in nonexistence posited as “freedom” and “equality.” The Judaic inversion did not make history linear: it made all of History into one grand circle, where the ending is the beginning we have been and are progressing towards. Perhaps it really is the case, as Strauss said, that “the life of the Jew is the life of recollection...” A recollection of the beginning that gave him his identity as a Jew, and the responsibility acquired from that identity: the

”

”

:

fl

ff

117

conclusion of that which consummated the rst Hebrew covenant with God: the completion of the process of inversion, of Exodus... The arrival at the destiny of mankind... It is this life of reco ection that characterizes the organismic civilization known as the West. Only now do we realize that what we have always called “up,” the direction we have craned our necks up to for 3000 years, has always been “down,” and that the ending we have sought has always been our beginning. This “progress,” this stepping forward, that has been the ame of our passion, and never been anything but a stepping backward... A step towards the beginning that is also the end. The ending of the West is its beginning, and its history has already been written..

.

fl

fi

ll

118

119

120

Chapter Five Novus Inversionem Secloru The New Beginnin

m

g



121

abrupt yet cinematic note — and more must be said about the precise nature of Judaic morality and the evidence for its expansive and ever-growing proliferation in the Western ideological and social psyche. To summarize, mankind obtains the ideology of Individualism from the story of Exodus, the methodology of the inversion of the collectivist and cyclical society, anchored on family and the past (ancestors), into the individualist and “progressive” society, anchored on the individual and the future. Put in another way, it is an inversion from valuing the duty of the individual towards the collective, liberal holism21, to valuing the eedom of the individual, liberal Individualism, a valuation that has the objective of destroying all authority and making the individual himself the ultimate authority. There is a precise distinction I suppose I should make here regarding the two types of Individualism: liberal and excellence. If liberal Individualism is the formula for human decay, excellence Individualism is the formula of human growth. Where liberal Individualism nds its meaning in liberation from duty and struggle, excellence Individualism nds its meaning in pursuit of duty and struggle, for it is the blessing of human nature that stru le is a necessity for exce ence: verily, man stru les more when he doesn’t... To pursue excellence in any realm, man must make himself a slave, obedient to the goal of mastery

To return, the inversion of value into Individualism that informs the revolutions of the modern West — the West can be most aptly understood as a Jewish civilization — is inherited ideologically from the story of Exodus. The goal for “progress,” the end of history

21

In the Hegelian sense: freedom as the freedom of the State itself

ll

fr

fi

fi

gg

fi

.

122

gg

1

2

I’m certain that wasn’t as convincing as I’d like it to be — I couldn’t help but nish on an

constructed by this inversion of cyclical reality, is best understood through the word Tikkun Olam, the construction of Heaven on Earth, the Open society that has but one authority: the authority that makes it free — and eventually, no authority at a : man becomes his own god. This desire to construct Heaven on Earth, to pursue the Open society, is synonymous with the desire to become God, and, as it is rooted in disobedience to God, leads us naturally to the millenarian calamity and crisis that will be the undoing of the West: Nihilism. God makes this clear in Exodus “The Lord will make you the head, not the tail; you will always be at the top and never at the bottom--if only you obey and faithfully observe the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you this day...But if you do not obey the Lord your God to observe faithfully all His commandments and laws which I enjoin upon you this day, all these curses shall come upon you and take e ect...” (Deuteronomy 28: 13-15 Is it the case that God’s curse resulting from man’s disobedience is the Nihilism of Modernity? When we return to Genesis, we see that the original disobedience that caused the Fall of man was the act of eating of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Can the Modern Fa of man not be understood as the eating from the tree of Rationality? And then, man falls precisely into what that act of disobedience to God entails: self-destruction, Nihilism, the Fa of man om Existence itself. Is this God’s punishment to the disobedient “Progressives” of the modern world? The crisis of Nihilism and our own self-destruction? Is this our curse? “The Lord will send the curse among you, will confuse you, and will rebuke you in everything you undertake until you are destroyed and perish quickly because of your evil deeds, since you will have forsaken him. The Lord will cause you to be ill with long-lasting diseases until you are wiped out from the land that you are entering to possess...The Lord

)

ll

ff

:

fr

ll

ll

123

will a ict you with insanity, blindness, and mental confusion. As a result, you’ll wander aimlessly in broad daylight just as a blind person wanders in darkness. You won’t prosper in life. Instead, you’ll be oppressed and plundered all day long, with no deliverer. You’ll be engaged to a woman, but another man will rape her. You’ll build a house, but you won’t live in it. You’ll plant a vineyard, but you won’t harvest it. Your ox will be slaughtered in front of you, and you won’t be able to eat it. Your donkey will be stolen from you while you watch and won’t be returned to you. Your ock of sheep will be handed to your enemies, and there will be no deliverer. Your sons and daughters will be given to another people while you watch. You won’t be able to approach them at all, and you’ll be powerless to help. “A people whom you don’t know will devour what your land and labor produces. You’ll be only oppressed and discouraged22 continuously until you are driven insane from what your eyes will see...“The Lord will banish you and your king whom you will appoint over you to go to a nation that neither you nor your ancestors have known, and there you’ll serve other gods of wood and stone. You’ll become a desolation23 and a proverb, and you’ll be mocked among the people where the Lord will drive you...The foreigner in your midst will be elevated higher and higher over you, while you are brought low little by little. He will lend to you, but you won’t lend to him. He’ll be the head, but you’ll be the tail.”(Deuteronomy 28: 20-44 The Covenant is made “These are the terms of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelis in the land of Moab in addition to the covenant that he made with them in Horeb.” (Deuteronomy 29:1) 22 23

depression depression once more

)

fl

.

:

ffl

124

The inspiration for Individualism is the story of Exodus, but only with the application of rationality can this theological Individualism be transformed into a political philosophy. America founds itself with this political structure born from the synthesis between Athens and Jerusalem: from the synthesis between Rationality and Revelation. This synthesis is what Strauss meant by the “harmonization” of Athens and Jerusalem: “...for the whole history of the West presents itself at rst glance as an attempt to harmonize, or to synthesize, the Bible and Greek philosophy. But a closer study shows that what happened and has been happening in the West for many centuries, is not a harmonization but an attempt at harmonization. “Belief in revelation is true, but not true for the philosopher. Rejection of revelation is true for the philosopher, but not true for the believer. The disharmony is the chemical reaction that gives rise to Nihilism, the crisis of Modernity discussed by Strauss and rst heard by Nietzsche

Although the desire to construct material Heaven on Earth is religious in context and historical relation, it is above all an enterprise that must be secular — that must be divorced from God — as it is clear disobedience to God. Modern rationality is merely the application of reason to a faith without the necessary belief in God, and it is this rationality that leads to political e orts to construct Heaven on Earth, to create an Open Society. The founder and advocates of the Open society are of Jewish heritage, but the paramount point regarding this fact is that they are secular: they reject revelation. That is, Popper and Soros

.

fl

”



fi

”

.

fi

125

ff

3

4

The price for man’s disobedience is his own inversion, and the West continues to ip..

both don’t believe in God, nor do they follow the traditions of their culture. Popper himself states “I don't know whether God exists or not Of course no man can know wether or not God exists: if God was/is provable, there would be no need for faith. Soros himself identi es as an atheist, but he believes in equality and freedom of religion: that is, Soros is a secular follower of Judaism, like all of the modern men who call themselves “Progressives.” He has made pluralism into a monism, and made it further along the circle of Exoduses back to the beginning. The disharmony of the harmonization between reason and revelation is never heard, for the modern man is deaf. Zionism, the seemingly “Jewish” movement of modernity, is characterized by the secularity of its followers. Rabbi Ed Snitko speci es Zionism as such “The transformation of this religious belief into a political ideology at the end of the 19th century led to the creation of the Zionist movement”24 To make this point clearer, in 2022, 45% Israel Jews self-identi ed as secular.25 How can it be that Jewish people abide by their faith but don’t believe in God? How can they inherit the land that is their so-called “religious covenant with God,” but perform the most egregious act of disobedience to that very covenant: disbelief? How can one make a religious claim to anything if they don’t believe in God? And if it is precisely this religious claim that upholds their “right” to this land, then have they not forsaken this right themselves? Is the rest of the world to believe what they themselves do not? As mentioned earlier, even the progressives of America can be considered Jewish. The thing that frees the Hebrews is the same thing that they eventually rebel against. The Individualism given to man by God has 24 25

MyJewishLearning.com wikipedia.org

fi

:

”

fi

fi

ff

:

126

om God. This is the disharmony that can only lead to silence...

Returning to the story of Exodus, we have the method for the construction of Individualism: disobedience to authority: the revolt of the child against the father. It is this very principle of disobedience to authority that not only characterizes the obstinacy of the Hebrew people, but also founds the American nation. The story of Exodus is ideologica y identical to the story of the American revolution. A minority group of people oppressed by the authority of a distant Patriarch of another tribe rebel against his authority and construct their own political (religious) structure rooted in an inversion from Collectivism to Individualism, consummating the liberation with a divine Covenant/Constitution.

The original Anglo-Saxon pilgrims free themselves in the same manner as the original Hebrews: through the inversion of Collectivism to Individualism. Some may have noticed a contradiction in the terminology “inversion.” If it were a true inversion, would it not be the case that the Americans would construct their own monarchy to usurp the Norman monarchy? This would be an inversion purely of names — the system continues all the same, a dynasty to rise and fall like the last and the next. In fact, this is how every divine Patriarch has always been toppled in history until America. The dynasties of China, the Kings of Europe, the Pharaohs of Egypt by the Emperors of Rome: history was marked by succession, not progression: the repetition of cycles, not the walking of a path. Inversion is the entire ipping of the political and social structure of a society and destruction of the eternal cycle of succession and injustice. To continue, the American revolution must be understood as a

ll

127



5

fr

fl

6

become their god, and it is the rationale man uses to make himself into God: secularism is Exodus

pivotal moment in which history is radically changed: in which the inversion beginning with Exodus is renewed once more. Although it is the case that Exodus provided the blueprint for inversion, its followers were few and downtrodden following the early fall of the Kingdom of Israel. For the sake of comparison, I wish to claim the little known and relatively unaccepted narrative that the people who founded America were largely of AngloSaxon descent/sentiment and theirs was not simply a revolution born from antagonism towards divine authority, but against external authority. The Norman Conquest was the 11th century invasion and conquering of Anglo-Saxon England by William the Conqueror, known to Anglo-Saxons as William the Bastard. Put in another way, the Norman Conquest was the making of the head of England, the Anglo-Saxons, into the tail, replaced by authority of the foreign invaders. L.G. Pine, the most reputable scholar on the history of the Norman Conquest wrote about its severity “The historian whose unthinking conscience allows them to justify the Norman Conquest, could as easily justify the Nazi subjugation of Europe.”26 The purpose of illustrating the scale of devastation of the Norman Conquest is to synthesize with the earlier mentioned Dershowitz thesis on a “modern conception of rights” as rooted from injustices of the past: present morality obtained from past oppression (verily, this model is followed more now than ever among modern American “progressives”/Jews). Even though the Norman Conquest occurred just under a thousand years ago, its e ects are still felt today in the psyche of the British. The conquest resulted in the transfer of AngloSaxon nobility in England to the Normans, and the loss of all rights to land, ownership, and property by the Anglo-Saxons: domination over the society at large was authoritatively

Sons of the Conqueror; descendants of Norman Ancestry by L. G. Pine

ff



128

:

26

exerted by the Norman force. Although it is true that the cultural/racial divide largely eroded away due to intermingling between the Normans and Anglo-Saxons, the injustice of the past was not forgotten, as evidence by the Harrying of the North as well as the Domesday book, and it’s impacts echo through time with the words of the Thomas Je erson “And although this constitution was violated and set at naught by Norman force, yet force cannot change right a perpetual claim was kept up by the nation, by their perpetual demand of a restoration of their Saxon laws; which shows they were never relinquished by the will of the nation. Je erson writes on the di erence between the tories and whigs “It has ever appeared to me, that the di erence between the whig and the tory of England is, that the whig deduces his rights from the Anglo-Saxon source, and the tory from the Norman.” The whigs were in favor of political independence, of the restoration of what they believed were their natural rights, rights unlawfully taken by the Normans (the return of the Anglo-Saxons to being the head), while the Tories were loyalists in favor of the English Monarchy. The Tories themselves saw a cultural relation to the monarchy, whereas the whigs saw nothing but a remembrance of the oppression of the past. Je erson essentially asserts that the two groups nd their morality in what side of the past oppression they nd identity with, and if this is the case, the notion of “universal” rights immediately self-destructs in the revelation of the illusion of its self-su ciency. Je erson again on the impact of the Norman on the AngloSaxon

fi

:

ff

ff

ff

”

ff

ffi



:

fi

:

ff

ff

129

“America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors [thus feudal law was never established]. Possessions there are undoubtedly of the allodial nature. Our ancestors … who migrated hither, were farmers, not lawyers.”27 Thomas Paine, the founder of our purported self-su cient “common sense” is revealed to gotten his “common” sense from purely the Anglo-Saxon perspective “Conquest and tyranny, at some early period, dispossessed man of his rights, and he is now recovering them.” (Rights of Man What particular “conquest” is being referenced? And was there a more important gure than Je erson in the founding of America, the penman of the Declaration of Independence? If the Hebrews harbored a grudge for 400 years, could the Anglo-Saxons not harbor one for 600? The story of American liberation is near identical to the story of Hebrew liberation: a group of oppressed people invert the structure of society of their past conquerors in order to establish an individualist social structure in a new and divine land under the divine Providence of God with the belief of a restoration of what was taken in the past consummated with the belief of being chosen with a man-made covenant called the Constitution. The Hebrews believed themselves to be chosen ones, and the original Americans did as well; “Annuit Coeptis,” one of the two mottos of the United States, selected in 1782 means “[In reference to God] He who has favored our undertakings,” and is the caption to the Eye of Providence which represents God atop the Pyramid of Egypt:

27

allthingsliberty.com

fi

:

ffi

)

ff

130

foundation of the nation of America. The rst Inversion, Exodus, was the Revolution of Revolutions, the revolution that would provide the blueprint for all revolutions henceforth from Ancient Egypt, revolutions that each bring mankind closer to the ending/beginning. “Novus Ordo Seclorum,” the second motto, means “The great cycle of periods is born anew.” The second Great Exodus, the second Great Inversion...

To make the relation between the American revolution and Exodus even clearer, Bruce Feiler explicates the notion of Moses as a founding father of America in his novel America’s Prophet as well as the founding fathers sentiments regarding the story of Exodus “When they embarked on the May ower in 1620, they described themselves as the chosen people eeing their pharaoh, King James. On the Atlantic, their leader, William Bradford, proclaimed their journey to be as vital as ‘Moses and the Israelites when they went out of Egypt.’ And when they arrived in Cape Cod, they thanked God for letting them pass through their ery Red Sea. “As the Continental Congress gathered in Philadelphia in 1776, comparisons with the Exodus lled the air. From politicians to preachers, pamphlets to pulpits, many of the rhetorical high points of the year likened the colonists to the Israelites eeing Egypt. “Three of the ve drafters of the Declaration of Independence and three of the de ning faces of the Revolution—Franklin, Je erson, and Adams—proposed that

:

fl

ff

”

fi

fl

fi

fi

fl

fi

”

131

fi

7

The very process of Inversion is represented symbolically in the symbol christening the

Moses be the face of the United States of America. In their eyes, Moses was America’s true founding father.”28 What more, drafts for the seal of America were symbolizations of the original Hebrew liberation “As John Adams reported, Franklin wanted the seal to feature the parting of the Red Sea, with Moses raising his sta while Pharaoh and his chariots of soldiers drowned as the waters closed in on them. In contrast, Je erson wanted another scene from the Exodus, with the Israelites led through the wilderness by a cloud in daytime and a pillar if re at night.”29

The Liberty Bell, commissioned in 1752, nds its inspiration from the words of Moses on Mount Sinai in Leviticus 25:10 “Proclaim LIBERTY Throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof.”30 Thomas Paine referred to the King of Britain as a “pharaoh” in Common Sense “I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever;”31 In Je erson’s inaugural speech, he makes reference to his forefathers as of Israel

28

America’s Prophet: How the Story of Moses Shaped America by Bruce Feiler

christiancentury.org nps.gov 31 Common Sense 29

30

fi

:

:

fi

ff

ff

:

:

ff

132

“I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence I have heretofore experienced -- the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land”32 And nally, in Washington’s eulogy, Moses was referred to as the “Washington of Israel.”33 8 It does not matter if one subscribes to the belief that part of what fueled the American revolution was generational animosity towards the Normans, fostering an eventual, through generations of conditioning and oppression, disdain for authority, leading towards near identical sentiments and conditions as that of the story of Exodus: the truth still stands. The blueprints for the construction of Individualism in both Judea and America are identical: inversions of the authority of human Patriarchs to construct “citizens” made in the image of God, imbued with self-evident and natural rights seemingly by God. The Judaic in uence on the founding father is undeniable. In the same way God constructs a Covenant with the Hebrews, the pilgrims construct a Constitution as their covenant between their government, god, and themselves. In the same way that the Egyptian Patriarch tried to stop the Hebrews but was felled in the sea, the Norman monarch aimed to stop the original Americans and his army was felled in the ocean. Both the Hebrews and Pilgrims sought one thing, restoration of justice, and they both believed it would only be possible through liberation from an oppressive tyrannical authority, imbuing within both the consciousness of the Hebrews and Americans the monolithic belief that, “Authority is Evil,” alongside the construction of an end for history, a meaning for the word “progress,” the achievement of material and social consistency for the ideology that founds their Inversions: liberal Individualism. America is 32 33

yale.edu jstor.org

fl

fi

133

Anglo-Jewish convergence, a convergence that has spread to all that considers itself modern.

The term "Norman Yoke" is a historical expression used to describe the oppressive rule and heavy taxation imposed by the Normans on the Anglo-Saxon population of England following the Norman Conquest of 1066. Orderic Vitalis was a medieval English chronicler and historian who lived during the 11th and 12th centuries, born 4 years after the end of the Norman Conquest. He is best known for his signi cant contributions to Norman history through his extensive chronicle, Historia Ecclesiastica, also known as the Ecclesiastical History, and in it he wrote “And so the English groaned aloud for their lost liberty and plotted ceaselessly to nd some way of shaking o a yoke that was so intolerable and unaccustomed. The term “Norman Yoke” begins to appear in the 1600s, and Gerrard Winstanely, a 17th century English political philosopher and activist stated “O what mighty Delusion, do you, who are the powers of England live in! That while you pretend to throw down that Norman yoke, and Babylonish power, and have promised to make the groaning people of England a Free People; yet you still lift up that Norman yoke, and slavish Tyranny, and holds the People as much in bondage, as the Bastard Conquerour himself, and his Councel of War” (The True Leve ers Standard Advanced A poem by Walter Scott in the 1800s to illustrate the long-standing prevalence of the term "Norman saw on English oak. On English neck a Norman yoke;

:



fi

)

”

ll

:

fi





ff

134

:

9

the modern Israel and Americans are the modern Jews. The American revolution is the

Norman spoon to English dish, And England ruled as Normans wish; Blithe world in England never will be more, Till England's rid of all the four From what was it the Hebrews were freed “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.’” (Exodus 6:6-7 The Hebrews worship the God that freed them from the Egyptian Yoke, a method of liberation enabled through the ideological construction of Individualism. The Americans, too, were freed from the yoke of a tyrannical monarch, but not by a God: they were eed by the idea imparted to mankind by God. The American revolution is the result of the synthesis between rationality and revelation, between Athens and Jerusalem, and as a consequence of this, America is necessarily secular. Its Individualism is not theological, but political. Americans are enslaved to the political idea of Individualism itself: it is their God. It is not the biblical God that the American is “under” — it is the political ideology obtained from rationalizing God: liberal Individualism. The West has only taken the elements of eedom and liberation as inheritance from Judaism and Christianity, and the rest, it has discarded. Truthfully, there can be no “secular” Judaism or Christianity: one must either take a of it, or take none of it. The modern man however, is the greatest consumer: he treats everything as if it were a bu et

fr

ll

fr

)







?




”

.

ff

135

1 It is my contention that Judaism as a religion aimed to be collectivist but possessed fundamental aws and contradictions preventing such a structure, contradictions which were resolved by Jesus Christ but never fully actualized in Western society. That is, even after Judaism, what man saw was not Christian nations, but rather, monarchial nations with some elements of Christianity and Judaism, leading to the modern era christened politically by the revolution of America, the construction of a nation that nds its in uence not in Christianity or even Judaism, but speci cally in the story of Exodus. It is also my belief that modern and secular Judaism are not clear worships of the faith, but merely a material continuance of the narrative deliverance of the Hebrews beginning in the story of Exodus, the emphasis of one’s religious e orts purely in the worldly domain of material equality and salvation. It is this deliverance that we see echoed in what is typically called secularized Christianity, socialism/communism, ideologies interested in equalizing society upon the basis that authority (class, racial, culture, religious, familial) distinctions between individuals are evil: creating material Heaven on Earth. The entire history of the West can be understood by this duality of authority and freedom, Collectivism and Individualism, born from the story of the liberation of the original Hebrews. What is typically known as Judaism in the modern world is simply the secular continuance of Exodus, and Progress has only ever meant progress of the original Inversion 1 America can be considered a nation of Inversion whose process of growth is further inversion. That is, the most notable events in the history of America are reoccurrences of Exodus leading towards the ending/beginning. America is a nation that founds itself on the ideology

fl

fi

.

fi

ff

fl

0

1

136

obtained from purely the story of Exodus. To be clear, the liberation of an oppressed group of people is not in and of itself a bad thing: the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement are both examples of the positive in uence of the ideology, but, liberal Individualism is not a necessity to abolishment of slavery: slavery is simply injurious use of authority, but authority in and of itself, is not evil. The narrative of Exodus was used by the abolitionists as well as the Civil Rights movement, but once again, one cannot pick and choose revelations: religion is not a bu et. According to Scott Langston a Biblical Studies professor “Americans have used the exodus story for a variety of causes, but three in particular— the American Revolution (1776-83), the Civil War (1861-65), and the modern Civil Rights Movement (1940s-1970s)”34 To be accurate then, a re-characterization of these events is necessary: the American Revolution was the Exodus from the authority of the Monarch, the abolitionist movement was Exodus from the authority of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement was Exodus from the authority of legal racism, and, my own additions, Feminism was/is Exodus from the authority of the “patriarchy”, and to be more precise, the beginning of the ongoing Exodus from biology/family, and secularism was/is the Exodus from the absolute authority of God. Liberal Individualism is an ideology that nds its founding principle in valuing above all other things the eedom of the individual, and Exodus is the story used as the ideological basis for all stories of liberation. While Exodus resulted in a religious inversion, the ideology itself was contained within the boundaries of Judaism, and as such, it could not be politically applied in a monolithic fashion. Unchained from the restriction of the covenant of God by

34

sbl.org

fl

fi

ff

fr

,

137

the tool of Rationality, the American Constitution is the secular recreation of this original covenant of freedom, the political monolithic expression of the ideology of Exodus, and the history of America is the material progress towards the deliverance promised by God to the Hebrews. 1 On a concessionary note, the economic structure of capitalism that is inextricably tied to the West is inherently a system of interaction rooted in Judaic belief. This notion is explicated by Werner Sombart in his book The Jews and Modern Capitalism as well as Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Protestantism, and it’s English form in Puritanism, are themselves Jewish religions, founded by a rejection of authority, and Exodus of the authority of Catholicism as Sombart corroborates “Puritanism is Judaism The Protestant work ethic that founds capitalism is rooted in the inversion of Individualism, the valuing of the self over the community, the proliferation of greed and dishonor into the collective at large. To be truthful, capitalism is the system of economy that enforces a behavioral system that is decidedly individualist, that gives value to the individual over all things, and ensures that the traits that grow in society are only those that lead to its direct and internal self-destruction, traits such as greed, sel shness, and remorseless, traits that can be themselves monolithically considered Jewish as Judaism is synonymous with Individualism. Capitalism, the economic expression of Individualism, to be certain, is a precondition for the end of times “But realize this, that in the last days di cult times will come. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, slanderers, disobedient to parents,

fi

:

ffi

:

”



2

138

ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power; avoid such people as these” (2 Timothy 3:1-5 The end of times is the end of Western society...

)

139

140




141

Chapter Si Head to Tai

l

x

142

the secularization of Exodus that has proliferated into the psyche of America and the West at large, a deeper explication of the exact internal natures of collectivist and individualist societies is necessary. To reiterate from the previous chapters, the morality obtained from the story of Exodus is necessarily unnatural: in inverting collectivist society, it also inverted natural selection. Where collectivist society operated on natural selection, individualist society operates on unnatural selection, however, we must be clear upon what basis this selection is evaluated. Natural selection, rooted in the structure of society of all primitive groups on earth, is selection for traits that are necessary to the continuance of the co ective/species. The typical eugenic/dysgenic outlook is selection for physical strength and weakness, but these are only of subsequent importance, if they are even important: that is, physical strength is perhaps important to some degree in primitive groups, but strength is important only if the society itself is interna y strong. Traits that are conducive to internal strength are not physical: duty, trust, obedience, sel essness, devotion, loyalty: honourful qualities — qualities that are much more important than strength in the context of war and con ict. Unnatural selection is a selection of traits that are not conducive to internal strength, traits that are only conducive to the temporary continuance of the individual and eventual self-destruction of the community: greed, sel shness, disobedience, distrust, disloyalty: dishonourful(capitalist/ jewish/individualist) qualities. These dishonourful traits can perhaps lead to the temporary increase in strength/wealth of the individual, but they naturally lead to the destruction of the family/community/society at large, and a society that operates in alignment with the natural laws of community will naturally select for traits that are above all sel ess — that are

fl

ll

fl

fl

fi

143

ll

1

In order to understand the precise nature of this morality of Individualism obtained from

whereas a society in misalignment with the natural laws will operate upon a basis of an unnatural selection of sel shness that will inevitably lead to the self-destruction of the superorganism and only the temporary continuance of the individual. This is the manner in which collectivist morality is eugenic and individualist morality is dysgenic — scholars who cite “strength,” “intelligence,” and other qualities, verily, do not understand evolution. The distinction of the societies is self-evident: the individualist values himself over the group, the collectivist values the group over himself: the outcome of the proliferation of such mentalities in society is also self-evident, as well as in the context of war. The need for society arises out of the weakness of the individual, the inability for the individual human to survive on his own, and in the same way a bee-hive or ant colony must operate in a superorganistic structure of duty and sel essness to make up for the inability of the individual bee/ant to survive on its own, a human society does the same, and more to the point, the human’s inability to survive on his own is not only true physically, but mentally/ spiritually as well. Behavior that runs contrary to this model of duty inevitably and invariably directly leads to the extinction of the group.

To elucidate on this concept, the notion of “survival of the ttest” is necessary. Coined by Herbert Spencer, the term is the ideological o spring of Darwin’s works and is the central element of many of the philosophies of the 19th century, including Nietzsche’s - however, there is a distinction of survival that has gone unnoticed for it was too broad for the mental conception of man: survival of the organism versus survival of the superorganism. What is meant by “ ttest?” Of course, we understand this in the matter of female mate selection, but

fi



ff

fl

fi

144

fi

2

directed towards the wellbeing of the superorganism of the community/society as a whole —

is, the parameters upon which selections are made by the women are not solely a product of the woman. To make this point clear, in the modern day, women often select for money, but money, as a metric of tness, did not exist for tens of thousands of years. Of course, money represents that the man is in the higher echelons of the society, and that is the point of precise importance: a woman selects the winners whose traits are enabled to proliferate, but she does not determine the race. Society itself, the manner in which it is structured ideologically, politically, religiously, determines the behavioral systems and traits that are rewarded. Survival of the ttest, in the comprehensive sense, is not survival of individuals, but of traits. In the American system, wealth is a metric of tness, but wealth is not a trait. The traits that enable wealth are expansive, but generally, I would categorize them in two spheres: competence and sel shness. Competence is a broad trait that encapsulates smaller traits such as intelligence, determination, perseverance, e ort, dedication, etc, and sel shness, as a broad category, encapsulates greed, ruthlessness, remorselessness, self-loving, avarice, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, unaccountability, etc (As a note, competence can be described as the prime element of exce ence Individualism, whereas sel shness can be described as the prime element of liberal Individualism). Which of the two is more important for success in the American social system is up for contention, but it is a social fact that sel sh traits aid greatly in one’s ability to climb up the ranks of wealth and even to simply nd general levels of success, not to mention the use deception to acquire wealth (scamming and lying), and therefore, the method of trait selection in the American/individualist system is destructive to the co ective at large. Survival of the ttest in America is solely survival of organism/individual, and this method of trait selection is directly against the survival of the

fi

fi

ff

fi

fi

ll

fi

fi

ll

fi

145

fi

fi

this selection does not occur in a vacuum or chamber: it is not dependent unto itself. That

the modern man does not understand, for he does not understand the organic nature of societies/collectives, and it is also the distinction that gives true meaning to the question of political philosophy. The focus of the individualist paradigm is survival of the individual, a selection method that priorities sel sh and dishonourful traits, therefore naturally leading to the self-destruction of the collective and the individual at the cost of the temporary grati cation of the individual. The focus of the collectivist paradigm is survival of the collective, a selection method that prioritizes sel ess and honourful traits, therefore naturally leading to the continued existence, happiness, and freedom of both the co ective and the individual. This is what is meant by categorizing the West as dysgenic, though it is also largely organically dysgenic...

To reiterate, sel ess and sel sh behavior can be described as living with honor versus living with dishonor, and the distinction is of extreme importance in the context of societies: honor is precisely a metric gauged through one’s service to others, sel essness, whereas dishonor is gauged through one’s service to solely themselves, sel shness. Of course, this is self-evident: a collectivist society gives ultimate value to the collective, the individualist society gives ultimate value to the individual: in an individualist society, the individual is superior to the co ective. In this manner, a collectivist society, an honourful society, ensures the continuance of not only its individuals, but the collective as well, whereas an individualist society ensures the gain of the individual at the cost of the collective at large — the two notions of survival of the ttest. The collectivist society selects for sel ess traits, only propounding its own collective strength, and the individualist society selects for sel sh

fi

ll

fl

fl

fi

fl

fi

fi

fi

ll

fl

ll

146

fi

3

superorganism/co ective. This is the broad distinction in evolution and survival metrics that

of the individual. The pursuit of freedom often makes one less free, a notion that Hegel understood fully: only in the con nes of a proper collective is man capable of experience freedom. (To add one minor example to this idea, consider the fact that the West considers itself to be free above all other nations, purporting that traditional societies are un ee, yet children in America are unable to play outside without extensive supervision, yet in “unfree” parts of the world, this fear of the stranger does not exist. Who truly is more free? And what more, in the land of the free, we nd most are slaves to themselves.) The political philosophy and policies that de ne a collectivist society are oriented towards the collective as a whole, whereas the political philosophy and policies of the individualist society are strictly towards the individuals within it. This brings us to the fundamental antagonism between Collectivism and liberal Individualism: prioritization of authority vs prioritization of liberation. The underlying duality is duty and freedom, the former of which is increasingly becoming a relic of the past

Duty is responsibility towards something beyond the self. Freedom is the desire to rid oneself of all duties and responsibilities and pursue solely the self. It has come to be my belief that the modern man, as a natural consequence of his rejection of authority, possesses a cultural characteristic of aversion of duty in any and all forms it exists, most notably however, in the structure of the family. Self-evidently this is the case, as if one is to have duty towards something, he has inserted himself into some pyramid of authority within which there exists inequality. In other words, if one is to have duty towards something, then he is naturally under some authority, wether it be an individual or an institution, physical or

fr

fi

fi

.

147

fi

4

traits, progressively weakening the collective at the expense of the temporary “satisfaction”

abstract. For example, in accepting the duty of family, a man and woman enter into a pyramid of inequality called the family: they are in duty to the institution of marriage/family, subject to its authority and rules, and must value the family over themselves, their own happiness, desires, etc are secondary to the collective that is their family. In this institution, the members themselves have varying duties and authority. As the head, the father has the most authority, but alongside it, he has the greatest responsibility. Certainly, he can abdicate on this responsibility and use his authority injuriously, or be entirely absent, but it is the role of society to raise individuals who are taught the importance of roles, their functions, and made to be aware of injurious behavior, and moreover, collectivist societies contain a social nexus net of cohesion and inter-dependence, a binding thread missing from modern society, that ensures a system of consequences for negligent behavior. The saying, “it takes a village to raise a child” is eminently true. People of the community, as a result of being integrated into a social net, will be aware of injurious uses of authority, improper behavior, absent parenting, imbalances, oddities, etc and make sure to rectify any and all issues: that is, the social structure itself is a self-regulating algorithm of accountability. Some may think that people should mind their own business, an inheritance of the bias of Individualism and “common sense” of Thomas Paine, but the growth of the child is the business of the community for this child is a part of the community. If he is raised improperly, then corruption and decay will inevitably enter and grow within the community: everyone is everyone’s responsibility. The policy of Individualism may begin smoothly, but it will always inevitably lead to the eventual self-destruction of a society. To return to the responsibility of the father, one must understand that it means that not only is he meant to bear the burden of the survival of the whole, but he is also the rst line of defense for any and all attacks on the

fi

148

collective. It is his life that has the most authority, but simultaneously, is the least valuable. The mother has a separate role and authority, and the children have no authority, but are the most valuable. That is, the further down the chain of authority one goes, the more valuable the life is: this is where the saying, “Women and children rst” comes from. This is what duty means. The man and woman who do not follow such a structure were punished in collectivist societies through the self-regulating integrated social net, but in modern society, they are rewarded. Individualism naturally leads to the belief that the individual is more important than any and all collectives, and that anything that restraints the individual’s freedom is evil. In the context of marriage, the individualist woman/man believe they are more important than the collective that is the family, that their individual “happiness” or other super uous characteristic of internal feeling gives them the right to abdicate on the family. In abdicating on the family, they introduce the possibility of degeneration and corruption into the system(especially in the case of single motherhood, the single greatest predictor of future degeneracy for children), as their actions directly result in harm towards the purpose of the institution of the family, the children, and this harm makes it so that there is a higher likelihood the child, in adulthood, partakes in degenerative behavior that negatively impacts the community at large. To portray this metaphorically, although families have privacy in the sense that they are in their own plots of existence, like a tree is in its own plot of a forest, if the family is to be abdicated by any of its authoritative members, if the tree is to start burning, the possibility that the whole community/forest burning down as a result emerges. The saying, “a group is a strong as its weakest link,” is true. More to this point of rejection of duty, an individualist society is directed more towards the feminine than the masculine, as the feminine is often the side that uses internal emotions as a gauge for external action,

fi

fl

149

while the masculine is (supposed to be, many modern men are increasingly e eminate)more rational and calculated in their actions, and as such, the destruction of marriage occurs through the woman with nearly 70% of divorces initiated by women, a number that jumps to 90% if they are college educated35. The rise occurs because of the ideological insemination of the belief of “equality” as a result of Individualism, resulting in a natural aversion to duty, responsibility, and a frame of mind directed towards internal “happiness,” “freedom," and “fun.” The end of times, lovers of self, pleasure, and money make up the bulk of the population of the West. This also correlates to the politically progressive slant of women, a number that increases among college educated women. The core tenet of Individualism is that one has no duty except to himself. To be viscerally clear, Individualism, at least in the modern liberal context, is the creed of sel shness and the formula for societal decay. It is the destruction of the “brain” of society, the abdication of responsibility, duty, obedience to any and all pyramids of authority, and the proliferation of dishonourful and sel sh behavior. Individualism itself is the reason for the ever declining marriage numbers and child-birth numbers in the US — family is deemed less important than the individual —, not to mention the increasing depression and mental illness from disharmony with natural social existence, especially among women. What was it that Popper vili ed Plato for “I legislate with a view to what is best for the whole state,’ says Plato, ‘...for I justly place the interests of the individual on an inferior level of value. It seems, in relation to the survival of the collective and the individual, Plato has always been right. If man is to truly believe the individual is more valuable than the collective, then he naturally comes to the belief that the individual is more important than the family. It is my

ejj-law.com

fi

?

ff

fi

”

150

fi

35

Individualism, but it is my fear that in a couple generations, the thought that the family is becoming irrelevant will not only be taken as self-evident, but as good. I suppose, by then, there will be no “society” to speak of — the end of times will have passed. What is the Allfamily of modernity espoused by Open society advocates? Such a concept is paradoxical given its foundational nature: the world will be a family of people who don’t believe in family.

This analogous discussion of duty and freedom also possesses the same contradiction as that of Individualism: just like the open society is actually closed, eedom is actua y a duty. That is, the modern man is in duty to that which provides him his eedom. In the same way a soldier goes to war to protect the freedom of the United States, the modern man is in duty to the belief system of freedom in order to preserve its existence. His responsibility then, is to maintain his individualist attitude and reject Collectivism, that which could actually give him freedom, wherever he sees it. Freedom is a paradox, as one is naturally dependent on that which has freed him, no matter if it is an idea or the very idea of freedom itself. Can true freedom be actualized? Only if all are truly equal in all matters, if they are the same in all matters, if there is no family, no authority, and all that gives meaning to the term human is abolished.That is, freedom can only be actualized when man has become god: entirely selfsu cient. We must understand this last point clearly. The modern notion of “freedom” arises speci cally from a narrative of dissent towards authority: freedom has only ever been understood by the modern man as material freedom from some authority. There is no notion of spiritual freedom, freedom of excellence obtained through mastery, or communal freedom, merely freedom that is always a rejection of obedience and an ability to indulge in

ll

fr

fr

fi

151

ffi

5

hope that this shocks modern people who have yet to be fully socially conditioned with

authority is God and therefore, the ultimate notion of modern freedom is liberation om God... What more, when we analyze this desire for freedom in the domain of the family, we discover that naturally, the desire for freedom is not only the desire to undo the collective, but the desire to undo ourselves, to lead to our own self-destruction. If man is to truly be free from all duty, how can the duty to continue to propagate life, to participate in society, to even live, be advocated for? The family is merely an authoritative institution, as is life itself: to be free, one must be freed from the obedience towards such inequality constructing authorities. True freedom is Nihilism: it is nonexistence. It is the a eviation of the duty to life itself, and the only result of such a liberation is self-destruction. The bottom most layer of duty, that which gives meaning to the word obedience, is revealed. Duty is man’s responsibility to his own existence and freedom is the aim to liberate him om this responsibility, om his own existence... The duality becomes that of the one referenced in Milan Kundera’s novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Man has been conditioned to believe that burden, the weight of duty, is negative while lightness, the alleviation of duty, is positive, but truly, it has always been the reverse. Burden has only ever been the sole thing that lightens, and lightness is the greatest boulder of a ...

Abdication from duty to abstract authorities gives new illumination to the modern liberation from biology, the transient emancipation of man from the gate that leads to all forms of duty. Only when man no longer has to uphold the responsibility to his own biology can he be free from all duty, from all burden, and truly be “free.” Man has believed all this

fr

fr

ll

fr

152

ll

6

material pleasures that make man more of a slave to himself. The ultimate notion of

these chains have only ever existed to prevent him om fa ing.

From this understanding of collectivist and individualist mentalities, of duty and freedom, the two ideas of “justice,” archaic and modern, Plato’s and Popper’s, are best understood. The collectivist society perceives justice not as “equal treatment of all,” but treatment of what one is owed “I legislate with a view to what is best for the whole state...for I justly place the interests of the individual on an inferior level of value.” (Plato When Plato speaks about the happiness of society and justice, he is reasoning upon what best serves the collective, which therefore, in a Hegelian manner, best serves the individual “And our answer will be that, even as they are, our guardians may very likely be the happiest of men; but that our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a State which is ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to nd justice, and in the ill-ordered State injustice: and, having found them, we might then decide which of the two is the happier. At present, I take it, we are fashioning the happy State, not piecemeal, or with a view of making a few happy citizens, but as a whole;... And so I say to you, do not compel us to assign to the guardians a sort of happiness which will make them anything but guardians; for we too can clothe our husbandmen in royal apparel, and set crowns of gold on their heads, and bid them till the ground as much as they like, and no more. Our potters also might be allowed to repose on couches, and feast by the reside, passing round the winecup, while their wheel is conveniently at hand, and

:

fl

)

ll

fr

:

153

fi

7

fi

time that the chains of authority attached to him have prevented him “ ying,” but verily,

working at pottery only as much as they like; in this way we might make every class happy— and then, as you imagine, the whole State would be happy. But do not put this idea into our heads; for, if we listen to you, the husbandman will be no longer a husbandman, the potter will cease to be a potter, and no one will have the character of any distinct class in the State. Now this is not of much consequence where the corruption of society, and pretension to be what you are not, is con ned to cobblers; but when the guardians of the laws and of the government are only seeming and not real guardians, then see how they turn the State upside down; and on the other hand they alone have the power of giving order and happiness to the State. We mean our guardians to be true saviours and not the destroyers of the State, whereas our opponent is thinking of peasants at a festival, who are enjoying a life of revelry, not of citizens who are doing their duty to the State. But, if so, we mean di erent things, and he is speaking of something which is not a State. And therefore we must consider whether in appointing our guardians we would look to their greatest happiness individually, or whether this principle of happiness does not rather reside in the State as a whole. But if the latter be the truth, then the guardians and auxiliaries, and all others equally with them, must be compelled or induced to do their own work in the best way. And thus the whole State will grow up in a noble order, and the several classes will receive the proportion of happiness which nature assigns to them.” The notion of the prioritization of the happiness of a select few may sound familiar to some: verily, it is the state of a airs in the Western world. The individualist society perceives justice as the inversion of collectivist justice, as “equal treatment of all,” which founds all the

ff

fi

ff

154

processes that de ne individualist morality, morality obtained from the secularization the story of Exodus. The assertion made by Popper and other liberal progressives that the justice of equal treatment is superior for a society is false. In treating people equally, one circumvents the natural truths of reality that are necessary for the conscious continuance of the collective: one nulli es the necessities of duty that enable society. In treating people equally, one treats people what they are not owed. In order to understand the political condition of the modern Western world, its policies, actions, and mentality, this inversion of justice must be elucidated. If we return once more to the analogy of the pyramid, modern equalitarian justice can be de ned as the e ort directed towards toppling the pyramid of authority to construct a at plain of equality where the archaic de nition co apses into the modern. That is, archaic justice is xated on treatment of what one is owed and if all are the same, all are owed the same: the two de nitions of justice coalesce. The method of reaching this collapsed de nition is through unequal treatment of a society best understood through the modern term “equity.” One is not treated on a basis of what they are “owed,” but rather, on a basis of how far from the plane of equality they are, all in the attempt at material equality. The closer towards the bottom, the more you are owed, the closer towards the top, the less you are owed. Some will immediately say this is a hypocrisy, that capitalism is evidence enough to the contrary, but when was it stated that capitalism was included in the notion of an “open” society? Fukuyama made clear that the inconsistencies within liberal democracy were not a result of an improper system, but rather, improper and incomplete implementation. Capitalism too, is an institution of authority hat must be abolished, evidenced by the modern progressive parties’ anti-capitalist sentiment and the system of socialism created by a secular Jew. Though, this is not a promotion of capitalism, a system of

ll

fi

ff

fi

fi

fi

fl

fi

fi

fi

155

societies. To state monolithically, capitalism is the economic expression of Individualism, and it’s only conclusion too is self-destruction.

To make the inversion of justice clear, the antagonism between the minority and the majority in the individualist framework must be explicated. In the traditional collectivist framework, to be certain, there is no such thing as a minority. A minority is a distinct group of people that makes up a small population of a society, and the modern manner in which minorities are distinguished in the West is by skin color, though this is completely imprecise and a method of ideological control to promote division where there is none. A minority is not a group of people that looks di erent but a group of people that believes di erent. Namely, a population of people do not divide into separate communities on the basis of di erent appearance, but rather, on the basis of di erent belief systems. Appearance is simply an evaluator of how likely someone is to believe what you believe, a subsequent factor of perception rather than inception. In the South of the United “Individuals,” there are plenty of black Christian communities that coexist homogeneously with white populations, and the truth of the matter, one that typical social science programs will never discuss, is that people don’t stick around people they look like simply because they look alike, but because they share the same culture, language, traditions, habits, and behavior. Every community, if given enough time, reaches a high degree of homogeneity in beliefs/ core values even if the people are from di erent places and walks of life, and homogeneity of beliefs is signi cantly more important than homogeneity of appearance for the success of the community. The notion is evidenced in the Old Testament, when the Hebrews were

ff

ff

ff



ff

fi

156

ff

8

materiality I believe also naturally eventually leads to the self-destruction of any and all

homogeneity of belief to settle into the consciousness and when the inhabitants of foreign lands are called people who worship other gods of “wood and stone." In any society, for it to operate properly, people must share the same values and culture to some high degree: there is respect for other beliefs only insofar as they don’t transgress on the core values of the society. To make this clear, America, although Popper tries to paint the facade of an open society, is a closed society. Its core values revolve around freedom, equality, independence: Individualism. Belief systems that are within these parameters are allowed, but belief systems that transgress in any way on these values are punished through the law and increasingly categorized as “hate speech,” censored and condemned: the idea that all ideas are equal is superior to all other ideas. All societies operate in this same manner, and for the purposes of this book, the distinction posited between the “open” and closed societies is simply the antagonism between liberal Individualism and Collectivism: an emphasis of morality on individual freedom versus collective duty. The irony of the “open” society’s belief system however is that even if it reaches homogeneity within the population, the people themselves will not share the same belief systems for the homogenized belief system enables di erent belief systems. This is the true nature of the inversion of Individualism: that which is shared among the “open” society, divides...

To reiterate, the minority is not a group people who nd their status as such in a society for “looking di erent,” but for “believing di erent”. The perfect “open” society is a structure in which everyone believes di erent. Where everyone, in being an Individual, is their own God.(Of course, even this is impossible as the open society is a closed society, so a beliefs are not

ll

fi

ff

ff

ff

157

ff

9

condemned by God to wait 40 years in order for a generation to pass and a new

allowed: only beliefs that conform to liberal Individualism) Minorities that are cast out of societies are exiled precisely on this basis of di erent belief, and, when we reach the core of the distinction in belief, it is belief in a separate god/gods/God. When God talks about the punishment that mankind will face in Deuteronomy 28, He characterizes the foreigners land as a place not “known” by man, where “other gods” are worshipped: the distinction is precisely in belief systems that are necessarily rooted in some worship of God/god/gods: religion. A foreigner can travel through one’s land, but the laws do not change for the foreigner: he is subject to the same law that all other men within that land are subject. A stranger is not treated exactly how he himself should like to be treated, but how the population itself treats themselves. To convey the notion de nitively then, a minority is a group of people who believes di erently. A true closed society naturally has no minorities. America has the unique problem of being founded on the belief that ensures that di erent beliefs are allowed to proliferate(freedom of religion), and its laws are not a set of beliefs in the traditional sense, but a legal boundary that enables the beliefs of all people insofar as they remain within that boundary. American Individualism possesses a fundamental unsolvable paradox within its principles that is naturally incongruent with any structure of human coexistence ever known to man, and as the years progress, the disharmony of this incongruence will only continue to grow: this paradox is Judaism, a belief system that naturally leads to the liberation/self-destruction of any group that believes in it. To repeat, a population of people homogenized by the American belief system, freedom, equality, independence, Individualism, are homogenous in the inverse sense: they all believe di erent things. True homogeneity in America is the division of a individuals, where even members of the same family don’t share the same beliefs, and although this may sound

ff

ff

fi

ll

ff

ff

158

incomprehensible to some, it is self-evident to others. The American system, the Open structure, reaches further consistency only through further division. It reaches homogeneity in heterogeneity.. 1 Why does the matter of di erent values always come down to belief in some God/religion, wether that be in the traditional sense or the individual sense(the individual as god)? Selfevidently, religion and belief, as proven in Chapter 3, are the basis for what one believes is good or wrong. Political philosophy and religion are inseparable. Political philosophy is the questioning of what the best structure of society is, the aim at discovering the best forms of human governance, authority, civility, and as reason alone is incapable of providing value judgements, one has need of revelation in any form of political philosophy (if you’ve ever been taught otherwise, you were taught either by a fool or a liar, or perhaps, by someone who was both). Revelation, religion as a whole, is, in solely biological terms, an articulation of what can be considered the brain of the superorganism known as human society. In the analogy of the human body as the superorganism, we came to understand the role of the small cluster of brain cells operating under the title, ‘I,’ to be the totalitarian authority of the body. Totalitarian in that it has absolute authority, but also, absolute responsibility: the life and death of both itself and the collective are within its hands. The notion ‘I’ for the human body can be considered, in the sense of authority, analogous to the divine Authority God related to Moses by His assertion “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14 Religion can be understood through this analogy as the imparting of instructions by the brain of the superorganism of society, the God of mankind, imparting upon it the absolute

)

:

ff

.

0

159

rules and laws that must be obeyed in order for the entire organism, the collective/society, to survive, the same way the brain of the human imparts absolute rules to the body of the human in order to ensure collective survival. I’m certain many will disagree with this analogy, and, to be clear, this is not an attempt to give value to a biological conception of the origin of religion — the purpose of describing it is to shed light on the necessity of religion in the context of society just as the brain is necessary for the human body. Religion imparts upon man the right way to live, the perfect political philosophy for both the individual and the collective, and only by living this way, by obeying, and not any other deviation of this way, is man, as an individual and as a collective, capable of surviving. To deny religion is to deny society itself. Or, to put the role of God, the deliverer of true political philosophy, in the hands of man himself: to make man into god. In the analogy of the human body, this Individualism is the liberation of the cells, the making of each cell of in nite worth, a liberation that has no end possibility except the self-destruction of the super-organism. Some may say that this model holds for the Western system, but these people have still not gotten it through their own heads that obeying this system can only lead to further division within: that obedience to it leads directly to disobedience.. 1 Naturally, all organisms have the goal of increasing their power through the assimilation of other organisms; this is the origin of the con ict for life and holds true for superorganisms as well. Historically, all societies have aimed to conquer/assimilate others, the victors of the con ict being obeyed by the vanquished, and, as is true of multi-cellular organisms, if the assimilated superorganism is cancerous or harmful, a fth column within, it is ejected/exiled. If there are a group of cells that are disobedient, that believe di erently — a minority —, the

ff

fi

fi

fl

.

fl

1

160

only possibilities are enforcing conformity or exiling them to ensure the survival of the whole. That is, if there is a cancer within the body, the cancer must be destroyed for the body to continue to exist. Needless to say, this is the collectivist perspective. From the individualistic perspective, the single sheep is considered more valuable than the ock, and the inversion is that the ock should be sacri ced for it, rather than the other way around. The body should die for the sake of the cancer. Certainly, for those who stray, the goal should be to bring them back to the right path of society, but the irony of the liberal individualist paradigm is that a the sheep stray. 12 To summarize then, religion is a self-evident necessity to political philosophy, and the question of justice has two answers: equal treatment of all or unequal treatment based on some parameter. The collectivist structure operates on the latter and the individualist aims for the former. As demonstrated earlier, the open system of society progressively reaches consistency the more it divides people. The more it makes of people into individuals with their own belief systems, separated from all other people — this is what is meant by Individualism: making people either into greater racists or self-destructive relativists. The liberal democratic structure has the e ect of enforcing a con ict of values among its people, a con ict of values which, once again, makes clear the notion that people separate themselves on belief system rather than appearance. As America is a “secular” enterprise, people nd alignment of their value systems in political parties, these parties forming two closed societies(one which claims openness) within the nation that are combative and increasingly polarized, constantly separating endlessly even within themselves, the animosity of the main division re ected in every subsequent division: division a the way down. Consistently, and

fi

ll

fl

ll

fl

ff

fi

fl

fl

fl

161

this is a result of the proliferation of mass media and the internet, the population of America has become more ideologically divided every decade. According to the Pew Research Center36 “The overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10% to 21%. And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past. As a result, ideological overlap between the two parties has diminished: Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican. “Partisan animosity has increased substantially over the same period. In each party, the share with a highly negative view of the opposing party has more than doubled since 1994. Most of these intense partisans believe the opposing party’s policies ‘are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.’ “People with down-the-line ideological positions — especially conservatives — are more likely than others to say that most of their close friends share their political views. Liberals and conservatives disagree over where they want to live, the kind of people they want to live around and even whom they would welcome into their families. It is notable to mention that, “These sentiments are not shared by all — or even most — Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views,” however, in line with the research itself, the proportions of uniformity among the extremes will only continue to increase

36

PewResearch.org

”

”

:

:

”

162

"Over the past twenty years, the number of Americans in the “tails” of this ideological distribution has doubled from 10% to 21%. Meanwhile, the center has shrunk: 39% currently take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions. That is down from about half (49%) of the public in surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004 "And this shift represents both Democrats moving to the left and Republicans moving to the right, with less and less overlap between the parties. Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median (middle) Democrat, compared with 64% twenty years ago. And 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican, up from 70% in 1994. To add to the absurdity, this research was done in 2014. It is self-evident to even disinterested citizens the perceptible rise in this polarity after the election of Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic. According to PewTrusts in 202137 “A month before the [2020]election, roughly 8 in 10 registered voters in both camps said their di erences with the other side were about core American values, and roughly 9 in 10—again in both camps—worried that a victory by the other would lead to “lasting harm” to the United States. A society nds its social cohesion in sharing common values leading to a natural level of uniform trust, but in America, this trust is not only increasingly disappearing, but must disappear for the system to reach consistency. Statistics corroborate this, but are unnecessary. Increasingly it is becoming the case that the modern man puts his faith into statistics and “science,” a word most do not understand, only standing on their beliefs if there is a study to

37

PewTrusts.Org

.

:

”

ff

fi

”

163

corroborate them, and as such, none of these people can believe in God, as He cannot be proven: if he could, what importance is Faith “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) The true nature of science is that it continuously changes. And more to the point, all statistics provide is an often imprecise descriptive evaluation of some trend, but say nothing about the nature of the presuppositions of what is believed to be good or bad. That is, the man who says he “believes” in science in the place of God has no basis whatsoever to say anything is good or bad: if he does, it is clear he has belief in something. A statistic may show that animosity has increased between political parties in the United States, but is animosity bad? Clouded by the illusion of “certainty” in science, people believe not what they see, think, or feel about reality, about what is good or wrong, but simply what a few scholars have written in texts that will likely be proven wrong in a decade or so. For the common American, it is self-evident that people are naturally distrustful of one another, that most people will not care if someone is in need of help on the street, the most important thing in their minds being themselves: statistics do not need to prove this. The American indi erence of the stranger is self-evident. Naturally, as shared values, religion, and culture are predicates for trust, America, where everyone increasingly has di erent values, religions, and cultures, trust is a depreciating asset, only present within smaller closed societies that are largely antagonistic to all others: this is true no matter the political or religious belief. The paradox of the notion of All-family in a “open” society is revealed. How can a society unite all the world into one family when the fundamental element of its “openness” makes this unison and trust impossible? If the individualist method of constructing the all-family is rooted in the method

ff

ff

?

164

that necessarily destroys the possibility of family? The only uni cation possible for a system that nds homogeneity in heterogeneity is uni cation in nonexistence... 1 A fully operant closed society does not have minorities: all believe in the same values, god/ God/gods, and follow the same traditions. All societies aim to reach a consistency in which it can be considered that the society is fully operant: where there is no minority. As an open society is actually a closed society, its aim too is to negate the existence of minorities, however, the American system cannot reach consistency of beliefs: if its values are to be homogenized, all must, in believing in themselves, believe separate things. Therefore, the American system, as it is incapable of traditional homogeneity, aims at racial homogeneity. This is what is meant by the term “Melting Pot.” Fueled by an incorrect understanding of the statistics of diversity and multiculturalism leading to more division among communities, modern “science” leads man in the direction of making a diverse and making everyone’s culture the culture of multiculturalism: pluralism as The Monism. This is the inversion of nature by nurture, by social conditioning and engineering, but even this goal of racial homogeneity will not occur: in saturating society with diversity and multiculturalism, people become even more divided. Individualistic societies, in their necessity for racial homogeneity, advocate for policies of multiculturalism and diversity, but such polices are poison for communities as Harvard professor Robert D Putnam makes clear “[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The e ect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us.”



fi

ll

ff

:

fi

fi

3

165

“In a column headlined “Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity,” Lloyd summarized the results of the largest study ever of “civic engagement,” a survey of 26,200 people in 40 American communities: When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of di erent races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. ‘They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,’ said Prof Putnam. ‘The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching. Lloyd noted, “Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history.’”38 Verily, such a conclusion needed no study: it was self-evident. An open society only makes people more closed. Even beyond political beliefs, people separate themselves ethnically: the segregation that marked a dark era in American history discreetly continues, propounding and propagating in the subconscious of the general population. The social cohesion net of a collectivist society united by a set of beliefs grounded in some God operates precisely on a high level of trust among its members. The situation is positively reciprocal: in having the same belief system, people are more trusting of one another, and the more trusting people are of one another, the more the beliefs are ingrained within the population. In the individualist society, homogeneity of belief systems, aside from the belief that people can have separate belief systems, is impossible, and therefore, trust is impossible. In the pursuit of the A -Family, America has undone the possibility of even the family. Most Americans think it inconceivable to allow their children to play outside alone, a re ection of their lack of

38

theamericanconservative.com

fl



’



ff

ll

166

trust in their community, but in other parts of the world, typically places considered “third world,” children play eely and adults live without fear, for the society is in Fear of God. As it has been implied, obedience to God is the most important element of any and a societies. As long as a society remains in fear of God, obedient to Him, the society will thrive, but if they disobey, then they shall be subject to the curses explicated in the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy. That is, once a society loses belief in their god/God/gods, self-destruction is inevitable. God is that which holds together all societies, as all societies are closed, and if one loses faith in their values, then verily, they lose faith in that which keeps their society in-tact. Some may read this and, as a result of their social conditioning, reject vehemently the notion of uniform obedience to one God, but these are the same people who not only devoutly worship the modern god of Individualism, but expect a others to worship her as we . The modern American “progressive” is a judge that commits the very crime they sentence the harshest punishments upon, and the modern American “conservative” promotes the very system that will eradicate that which he is aiming to conserve: the progressives of yesterday are today’s conservatives. The modern conservative is a fool swinging a sword in a battle that ended long ago, and for a side that has nothing but the death of its own soldiers as victory.. 1 To summarize, America is founded by the ideology of liberal Individualism inherited from a secular reading of the story of Exodus. This ideology nds its essence in inverting the collectivist structure of society and making the individual of ultimate worth: the individual superior to the collective. Such an inversion is incongruent with the natural necessities of any and all societies; America is in a state of paradox inherited from the religion of paradox. Naturally, its inhabitants aim to reach higher levels of homogeneity, but as the system is

.

ll

ll

fi

ll

fr

4

167

incapable of reaching homogeneity of beliefs, social conditioning and engineering is aimed towards racial homogeneity, an e ort that has self-evidently resulted in nothing more than greater division and distrust among American communities. This division can be understood as the construction of more and more closed societies within the monolithic “open” society, and is the natural result of the paradox: the aim to become more “open,” against the laws of human nature, has only fractured the society into smaller closed societies, only propounding the issue that was meant to be xed. Naturally, as there cannot be homogeneity among closed societies due to di erent belief systems, con ict among the groups that have more distinct and antagonistic value systems arises. Christianity, a faith characterized by openness and inclusivity (as all religions aim to make their religion the all-religion), has been internally corrupted by a slackening of rules and authority to appease the desire for individual freedom: modern Christianity is Jewish. That which could once unite people, religion, itself splinters into separate closed groups, distrustful of people who believe in the same God. The ideology of Individualism can only divide. This is the paradox of an open society: that its openness has only made people more closed. It’s goal of making people more loving has made them more hateful. It’s goal of making all people into family has made all people into foreigners. Its goal of making groups more inclusive has made groups less inclusive. In aiming to end authority, it has only enabled the negative elements of authority. The Nazism of 20th century Germany can be understood in this light. In excessively suppressing the natural civilizational state of people, an explosion of negative elements of Collectivism erupts: extreme authority, extreme con ict, and extreme separation. The recent surge in cultural and national pride in America, the closed groups on the conservative side, can be explained in this manner, and the motto of former President Donald Trump, “Make America Great

fl

ff

fi

fl

ff

168

Again,” is a call to returning to the collectivist system of values that all societies are in natural need of. If one goes back to the analogy of society as a superorganism like the human body, what natural response aside from convulsion is possible when being administered the poison of Individualism? And if Individualism is a poison created from the inversion of Collectivism, then naturally, Co ectivism is the antidote. In some ways, I suppose this book can be described as “In defense of a Closed society,” but, as I’ve demonstrated, such a defense is super uous as there are only closed societies. 1 Returning to the poisonous model of Individualism, I suppose I should explicate on the manner in which this poison reaches consistency in the body. Human groups naturally repel Individualism, and it is only through governmental intervention and social conditioning that the poison can be forced down the throat of a society. The equalitarian form of justice, equity, is the prime methodology of this poison. It is the material equalizing of all people, cultures, traditions, and religions, the systematization of equalization. It is the practice of bringing the head down and the tail up, ipping society, inherited from the secularization of Deuteronomy 13 “The Lord will make you the head, not the tail; you will always be at the top and never at the bottom--if only you obey and faithfully observe the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you this day This notion brings light to all manner of progressive policies that are advocated for and applied in the name of “progress,” and “equality,” policies made in the name of “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” always operating with a compass oriented by the magnet of “past injustices”: progressive policies that are Judaic. To reiterate, an individualist society treats



”

fl

ll

:

fl

5

169

people not on a basis of what is owed, but upon the basis of their degree of separation from the median line of equality. In order to atten a pyramid, the bottom must be raised and the top must be brought down. Earlier I mentioned the ruling that struck down a rmative action, a movement in the conservative direction of the de nition of equality, blindness (such as that of Lady Justice), as opposed to the individualist de nition, equity. The political conversation around AA solely focuses on black and white applicants, and the general progressive contention is that, on the grounds of past injustices, black applicants should be given preferential selection over white applicants. Of course, this de nition is super uous as every person has within their genetic history evidence of prior injustices. The claim that white people have never su ered disregards the truth about the Norman conquest, the Harrying of the North, countless massacres, and white slavery prevalent all across Europe.Verily, the entire history of humanity is that of conquest, every group of people eventually being pillaged, raped, and conquered by another: past injustice is in the blood of all people, as they have made it to today. We discover then, that there is an unspoken temporal and geographical distinction to “past injustices,” which means that the modern mind only considers the history of America in its conception of past injustices. To reveal just one aspect of the incredulities within this perspective, consider that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau in 201339 “The rst-generation popul tion (foreign born) numbered about 40 million people, or 13 percent of the total population in 2013. The second-generation pop lation (native-born residents with at least one foreign-born parent) comprised 12 percent of the total population in 2013, or about 36 million people

39

Census Data

fl

ffi

u­

fi

fi

fi

fl

”

a­

ff

:

fi

170

ancestry to a place that is neither temporally nor geographically American. To elaborate even further, in the year 1930, 31.4%40 of the American population were rst or second generation immigrants. In 1950, the population of America was 150 million. Since then, almost 50 million people41 immigrated legally to the United States, a number that does not include refugees or illegal immigrants. Today, the population is a little over 330 million people. In the melting pot that is America, with the millions and millions of immigrants owing in from all parts of the world to start a new life, what percent of the current population can be said to have ties to America before 1950? Before 1900? Before 1850? Before 1800? The American population in 1800 was 5 million. In 1850 it was 23 million. In 1880 it was 50 million. In 1900, it was 76 million. In 2000, only 7% of the population reported their ancestry as American.42 Assuredly, following from these statistics, much of the current American population nds few links, aside from those gained from marriage, to the small population of Americans in the 1800s and early 1900s that are used to monolithically de ne these “past injustices,” not to mention the geographical disparity with which these injustices occurred. In other words, the basis upon which discrimination occurs for AA is mostly between applicants who, by statistical likelihood, have no ties whatsoever to these past injustices: AA itself is the proliferation of modern injustices. People will say that America is largely of general European descent, white, and therefore, culpable for the crime of slavery...but then would Africa, of black descent, not be just as culpable? There is a mass proliferation of the ideology of Exodus in the minds of all Americans(especially among the

Pew Research prb.org 42 census.gov 40 41

fi

fi

171

fi

fl

In 2013, a quarter of the American population were people that immediately cite their

founding fathers), that the injustices of the past are the evaluative metric used to determine the morality of the present, and God is simply he who has chosen those who have seemingly su ered the greatest injustices. The group that is the most important is the group at the very bottom. 1 In response to this separation of the individual ancestry to the injustices of the past, the notion of “white privilege” has been established, denoting the “inherent” advantage people of a lighter skin color have on the basis of their skin color. The latter part is of immediate importance. It is claimed the reason for an individual’s advantage in life in the West, if they are of white skin color, is due to their skin color, and thus, the reason for an individual’s disadvantage in life, if they are not white, is also due to their skin color. In line with this, there is the common notion, aligned with the morality of the minority, that anyone who is not white cannot be racist. This sentiment is echoed in the news, lms, shows, books, articles, social media, universities — everywhere one goes, the motto of victimhood(universalized pity) proliferates, a motto formed from the ground of the individual. No matter that the majority of modern Americans are of relatively immediate immigrant status, with no incorporation of the injustices they may have faced from wherever they immigrated from, they, upon their racial inclusion in the category of the majority, are bad. Is it a crime that a country founded by white people is largely white? Does that make the founding of black majority countries also a crime? Is it evil for a country that is white to want to remain white? Are Ghana or Sudan evil for their emphasis on black policies and rights? South Korea on South Korean rights? Japan on Japanese rights? Turkey on Turkish rights? Must the entire

fi

ff

6

172

settled? 1 To explicate on this notion, the countries outside the West are by and large ethnostates. They nd uni cation in their population through largely being of the same ethnicity and their policies and money directly go towards the bene t of their ethnic groups. This model has been the standard for almost all societies that have ever existed, but Western media would have you believe that the concept is only present in the goals of white “nazis” in the West. Wikipedia doesn’t even have a page dedicated to “ethnostates,” but solely for a “white ethnostate” “A White ethnostate is a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to Whites” (wikipedia There is a separate page for “ethnocracy” “An ethnocracy is a type of political structure in which the state apparatus is controlled by a dominant ethnic group (or groups) to further its interests, power, dominance, and resources.” (wikipedia But paradoxically, America is not listed as an ethnocracy. Moreover, the countries that are listed, such as Turkey, Somalia, Malaysia, Uganda, and Israel have no such dedicated wikipedia pages for their “ethnostates.” The matter of Israel is of immediate concern. If it is the case, as many Westerners believe, that ethno-nationalism is the greatest of all evils — “Never Again!” — then why is there so much support for the ethnostate of Israel? Why are there no pages dedicated to “Jewish ethnostates?” We return to the prior concept. The idea, as a standard, is not perceived to be evil as such, but rather, only in connection to the concept of “prior

fi

:

)

)

:



fi

173

7

fi

world melt into a shade of brown, an equality of race, before this matter of “past injustices” is

injustices.” This is why it is white “ethno-nationalism” but merely black “separatism” and subversively Jewish “sovereignty.” The tail cannot be wrong. But this reveals that the Judaic process of Exodus has no end: once you become the head, you too wi be inverted by the new tail: injustice begets injustice, and the cycle continues... The reason America is not listed as an ethnocracy is because it nds its birth in the breaking of this ethno-nationalistic standard, in the construction of a new standard of diversity and multiculturalism rooted in Individualism. To be certain, ethno-states enable the beginning of the most important goal of all societies — uni cation of the people — but it must be understood that not only does democracy destroys a ethnostates, but also lead to their construction... To paint this in a holistic sense, an ethnostate a rms the fundamental element of Collectivism, that the collective is more valuable than the individual, and this notion is the unifying force of all societies. Democracy is the political articulation of Individualism, and as made clear earlier, it divides even people who look the same. Evidently, an ethno-state is incompatible with a democracy — verily all societies are incompatible with democracy — and this makes explicit the internal self-destruction of a nationalistic and democratic country such as Turkey. But along the same vein, the continuous division only increases the likelihood that an ethnostate emerges through suppression leading to con ict. Ethno-nationalism, the socio-political unifying of a collective through ethnicity, is impossible in America not only because it is a democracy, but because it is the most diverse place on the planet, however, paradoxically, the West believes that the only way to unify a group is through racial homogeneity. That is, the same people that decry the motives of white ethno-nationalists harbor the exact same goal, only projected onto a future of racial homogeneity: both groups desire racial homogeneity, though the former nds particularity in this, where the latter nds a pseudo-universality. Palpably, the latter goal of

fi

ll

fi

fi

fl

ffi

fi

ll

174

eventual racial homogeneity fails to understand that racism and disunity among a group of people foremostly nds its root not in people being of di erent appearances, but of di erent beliefs. People foremostly divide themselves on separate belief, not race, and race/ appearance is the metric used in evaluation of the likelihood of similar belief. Groups of people may be hostile to people that look di erent, but if a similarity of core values, culture, and religion are ascertained, there is open acceptance. America’s method of homogenization is purely racial — it a rms and encourages di erences of belief, culture, tradition, etc, and therefore, prevents not only this goal of racial homogeneity, but any sort of homogeneity at all. America’s method of uni cation is division. 1 A country can only be deemed evil by the standards it sets for itself. America and the West’s standards are those tied to Individualism: that there are no true di erences among people. That all are individuals. America is not a “white” country. It is not a country that believes in God: it is a nation of “individuals” that believe in the god of Individualism: ideolatry. Its ties to cultural, ethnic, or religious roots, to the past, are binds that must be severed, trees that must be uprooted. The conservative tradition of pride in the past and the nation at large must be erased, censored, destroyed. As Fukuyama might say, Americans must rid themselves of their “irrational pride” in these “arbitrary concepts.”43 The American who has pride in his country is evil — he is an “ethno-nationalist Nazi,”and the American who has pride in liberal democracy is good. As long as a concept of a “minority” exists in America, as is true of all closed societies, the country is in misalignment with its own progressive

43The

End of History and The Last Man

ff

ff

ff

ff

fi

ffi

fi

ff

8

175

its founding value. To repeat, the history of America has already been written. 1 Returning to the nature of AA, we nd that, aside from its explanation of “past injustices,” it is speci cally a policy that bene ts the minority. Namely, it has the goal of equalizing the minority and majority: of making the head into the tail and the tail into the head. This is what is meant by equity, the political practice of Exodus. Equality would mean that one does not take into account factors of race, sex, religion, creed, etc, and select applicants solely on the parameter of basis that matters for university: merit and credibility. Equity policies, however, are interested in equalizing the outcome. What is the desirable outcome? The attened pyramid through the process of inversion, where the head becomes the tail and the tail becomes the head. We see the process becomes recursive and self-actualizing. Namely, the parameter that equity uses to admit applicants is equality itself, and until full equality is achieved, equity is a necessity: the loop repeats like a program aiming for a higher percentage of success. The same is true of diversity and multiculturalism practices. Paradoxically, not only will this methodization never work, but it reaches lower success on every successive loop. That is, it divides people even further in its practice of equity. On the other hand, a meritocratic approach is a non recursive process: it selects quali ed applicants every loop, not aiming to reach some external standard: it gives what is owed. If equality is the in the cover of night, equity is the the in broad daylight: it is the creation of new injustices that will de ne future morality... Ironically, looking into AA through this understanding of equity, we discover that the manner in which a minority is given preferential treatment is not through their population but through their performance. To display this occurrence, if AA operated

ft



fi

fi

fi

ft

fi

fi

176

9

fl

standards. America’s history, as stated, will be the gradual achievement of consistency with

on a system of equity of minority populations, Asians, who are a minority, should dominate all universities. Rather, it is revealed that a minority is not solely a group that is small in number — it is a group that has little power/poor performance... That is, it is the goal to completely equalize performance beginning with the minority: all racial categories must have the same outcome: all racial categories must be the same. The inequality of reality is conditioned and continually welded out of shape to construct a world that is not only equal, but that believes in equality. Verily, the latter is a necessity for the actualization of the former. A rmative action only a rms students into inaction.. 2 In the paradigm of ipping, the most vili ed are the head and the most extolled are the tail. There is a clear progressive disdain for the head of America, the majority of the population — white people and Christianity — and support for the tail, the minorities - LGBT, people of color, di erent cultures, religions, and most prominently, Jews. The latter group is of extreme importance. As the minority of minorities, the social structure of liberal Individualism gives the most value to these people and the least value to the people at the top: whites. To be eminently clear, the pyramid of America, in terms of population, is not upright: it is already inverted. The majority of the population are at the top, and minority groups are at the bottom.The typical structure is that of a small group of people at the top, but in the American system, the majority of the population are considered the head, just as the larger Egyptian population was considered the head in Exodus. Before elucidating further on AA, in order to clarify this hatred of the head that is the majority, an investigation of “hate speech” is necessary. To be speci c, hate speech itself is a paradox, built o of a secular conception of natural rights and equality that has abandoned the faith upon which they

ff

.

fi

fi

ffi

fl

ff

ffi

0

177

were reasoned. No longer is blasphemy, heresy, or treason considered “hate speech” — only words targeted at the minority, increasingly denoted as the minority gets sma er. There can be no “hate speech” towards the white male population of the West, the majority/head, and the most severe o enses of hate speech are “derogatory” statements made about Jewish people. “Kill all White men” won’t make a single headline, but replace “white” and “men" with any other category and you have yourself a media eld day. The Open society, the egalitarian, globalist, and equal world is a necessity for the Jewish people. As the minority of minorities, only the policy of Individualism can prioritize their interests, and only the nation that believes in Individualism can defend their interests, as they themselves have been and are unable to independently buttress their e orts of “sovereignty” — in some ways, America is the god delivering the original Hebrew covenant. To develop this notion of valuing the minority over the collective deeper, a foray into the list of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups44 is valuable. The vast bulk of the hate groups are titled “Neo-Nazi,” “White-Supremacist,” “Christian Identity” — some variant of nationalism tied to speci cally white people: those “responsible” for the injustices of the past. No other race supremacy movements are included, as black supremacy movements have recently been moved to other hate categories, such as “antisemitism” “In pursuit of a more accurate and more just hate map, the Intelligence Project (IP) has committed to collapsing the Black Separatist listing. We will still monitor these groups, but we will be transferring them to hate ideologies, including antisemitism, that better describe the harm their rhetoric in icts.” (EQUITY THROUGH ACCURACY: CHANGES TO OUR HATE MAP45 44 45

wikipedia.org splcenter.org

ll

:

fi

)

fl

ff

ff

fi

178

The SPLC goes on to say in the article noting this change that “Unfortunately, the FBI has a “Black Identity Extremist” label for monitoring domestic terrorism. This label is unfounded, and is in itself a form of suppressing Black activism and organizing,” This makes clear that what matters is not the logic, standard, and methodology of “hate groups,” but merely their identity as a minority and their relation to “past injustices.” Black separatism is de ned by wikipedia as such "Black separatism stems from the idea of racial solidarity, and it also implies that black people should organize themselves on the basis of their common skin color, their race, culture, and African heritage."46 This same idea is what founds white nationalism, and in the connotation of white people, it is “Nazism” or some other variant of terminology to categorize “evil.” The idea as such is not evil and only the groups relation to the past is what gives morality to these ethnic pursuits, and its easy to see how this mentality only enables the proliferation of the same system throughout time: a cycle of minorities. Judaic Individualism cannot demonize or criticize the minority — otherwise, it falls into contradiction with its founding principle: dissent to authority. How can a minority group, suppressed by the authority of the majority, be hateful in the perspective that views the liberty-oriented e orts of the minority, reoccurrence of Exodus, to be the ultimate process for the Salvation of mankind: for the actualization of “true” equality? That is, in the social structure of Individualism, for minorities, the more minor they are — the closer towards the tail they are — the more powerful they are. There are no listed hate groups that are Jewish or semitic oriented: no “Jewish nationalists” or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_separatism

:

ff

:





179

fi

46

“supremacists.” I suppose such a group doesn’t exist...oh wait. If the system of Individualism truly operated on equality rather than the veneer of equality through “equity,” it would list Zionism as racism just as the UN did in 1975 “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on 10 November 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”47 This was later revoked in 1991, its revocation inaugurated by George H. W. Bush “UNGA Resolution 3379, the so-called "Zionism is racism" resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history.48 To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself49, a member of good standing of the United Nations. This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist. By repealing this resolution unconditionally, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace.” (Address to the United Nations on September 23, 1991, wikipedia.org Later, in 1998, UN Secretary General Ko Annan remarked on the original resolution “We must use the occasion to denounce anti-Semitism50 in all of its manifestations. This brings me to the lamentable resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1975, equating Zionism with racism and racial discrimination. That was,

47

wikipedia.org

The morality of the present informed solely by the injustices of the past 49 Bush implicitly says it: anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism 50 To call out racism is racism 48

)

:

:

:

fi

180

perhaps, the lowpoint in our relations; its negative resonance even today is di cult to overestimate. Fortunately, the General Assembly rescinded the resolution in 1991.” (Address to the Israel Foreign Relations Council and the United Nations Association of Israel, Jerusalem, 25 March 1998 Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, a Jewish law rm focused on silencing anti-Zionist dissent51, stated in a 2022 speech what can be considered the pinnacle of the inversion of hatespeech “anti-Zionism is antisemitism Zionism is simple nationalism: the embodiment of Jewish nationalism, a movement that aspires to establish a Jewish nation. That is, the very same concept of nationalism that is decried by all modern politicians as “hate groups” and promoters of “hate speech” is used by Zionists to assert their own nationalism, and dissent towards the minority of minorities’ “opinion” has become the epitome of hate-speech: the greatest acts of hate speech are those directed at Jewish people. To even disagree with the political goals of a foreign nation makes you an anti-semite. That is, if you are not a Jewish nationalist, you are a racist. Is it that the curse that God is in icting is not on the Hebrews, but on the rest of mankind “The foreigner in your midst will be elevated higher and higher over you, while you are brought low little by little. He will lend to you, but you won’t lend to him. He’ll be the head, but you’ll be the tail.” (Deuteronomy 28: 43-44 It is my contention that only that which is against the interests of the minority can be considered hate speech in the modern West, and the further down the totem pole of

51This

book too, will be censored by the ADL

ffi

)

fi

”

fl

)

?

:

181

minorities one goes, the more severe the punishment. This is inversion. When Soros says, “Above all, there is respect for minorities and minority opinions,” what we discover is that, the further minor the minority — the closer they are to the tail — the more their opinions are facts. The minority as morality. 2 Before continuing with the hypocrisies of hate speech, the recent asco with the ADL, a Jewish litigation company focused on controlling free speech in the public domain, and X is valuable. Elon Musk, in acquiring what was formerly known as Twitter, revealed the internal censorship practices of the previous owners, practices that were excessive in quantity during 2020 election against right leaning groups, in what is now known as the Twitter les “...Twitter did indeed engage in the dreaded “shadowbanning” of far-right imagining52 and discriminate against conservative accounts by completely hiding them from the general public in an act of “woke” censorship perpetrated at the highest levels.”53 In acquiring Twitter, Musk promised it would be a platform for free speech. Naturally, in response to this forceful restoration of American law, the ADL began to sti -arm advertisers to stop them from advertising on the platform, claiming that advertisers who partnered with X would supporting “anti-semitism” and “holocaust denial.” Musk revealed their e orts, resulting in the subsequent explosion of the hashtag “BanTheADL” "Since the acquisition, The @ADL has been trying to kill this platform by falsely accusing it & me of being anti-Semitic” (@ElonMusk The ADL denied the accusation, but the 60% loss in revenue can only lead to one questioning source 52 53

aljazeera.com wired.com

”

ff

fi

ff

:

fi

)

:

1

182

“based on what we’ve heard from advertisers, ADL seems to be responsible for most of our revenue loss” (@ElonMusk In true paradoxical fashion, as modernity is the era of paradox, Musk and X led an antidefamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League “To clear our platform’s name on the matter of anti-Semitism, it looks like we have no choice but to le a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League … oh the irony!” (@ElonMusk And not only that, the claims of Musk’s antisemitism lose their weight when Alan Dershowitz, a Jewish lawyer heralded as “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” and “most distinguished defenders of individual rights,”54 himself wrote in June of 2023, in response to Musk’s comparison of George Soros to the comic villain Magneto, that “Musk himself has shown no hostility toward Israel or the Jewish people. He is not an antisemite, and what he said is not antisemitic.”55 Though this may be because of Dershowitz’s Zionistic hatred for Soros... The basis for the ADL’s sti -arming of advertisers was speci cally a supposed increase in “anti-semitic” posts and conspiracy theories after Musk’s purchase of the company.56 This situation can be understood directly in line with the paradox of Popper’s paradox of tolerance: people silenced on the basis of an absolute set of rules that give the most value to the lowest. That is, there are no e orts by the ADL or other anti-hate-speech groups to stop anti-White or anti-Christian hate speech, which, to be sure, proliferate extensively on the internet and on X, but rather, solely “anti-Semitic” speech, which, as accordingly to the CEO of the ADL, is

harvard.edu jpost.com 56 nytimes/twitterhatespeech.com 54 55

,

fi

:

fi

)

ff

fi

)

ff

183

any speech that is not decidedly Zionist: not Jewish nationalist. Indeed, this palpable inversion would never have been proven explicitly if Musk had not acquired Twitter. To broaden the perspective here, X is a company that possessed the necessary funds and power (though Musk) to circumvent the ADL’s back-street dealings with advertisers, but with smaller companies and individual people, there is no alternative but capitulation, capitulation that naturally comes with silence. The ADL’s loss to Musk and X was unprecedented: the situation was an exact nexus of events that their in uence could not overcome leading to the establishment of what can only be considered the most free platform of speech in the world today. By the ADL’s standards, not agreeing entirely with the ethnic nationalism of a foreign nation, Zionism, is “hate speech” and anti-Semitism, so I suppose then, most of the world is culpable.. 2 To illustrate this point even further, let us return to the paradoxes of hate speech. There are a plethora of anti-LGBT groups listed by SPLC as hate groups: does that make Christianity and Islam as broad categories into hate groups? One cannot be gay as a Christian or Muslim, as much as gay Christians try and say this: the punishment for homosexuality is explicit in their Covenant “If a man has sexual relations with another male as he would with a woman, both have committed a repulsive act. They are certainly to be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:13 (Ironically, this is in the Old Testament, so I suppose Jews too are anti-LGBT.) Disobedience is disobedience. The modern Christian who says he believes in Christianity but does not uphold its teachings is revealed to have capitulated on his values by disobeying God. He has put more value into the idol of liberal democracy than that of God himself: idolatry.

)

fl

.

:

2

184

Muslims also decry homosexuality, condemning it with death in the countries that uphold the Islamic covenant. It is under the divine law of Islam and Christianity that LGBT people are punished, but it is according to the “rational” law of Western society that Islamic and Christian believers who would fo ow their faith are punished. To be sure, this law is not “rational”: it is the covenant of the modern god: Individualism.The Christian and Muslim people of the West are not a owed to uphold their religious law, and as such, the law of the West is actively preventing the Christian and Muslim from identifying as such: there can be no Christians or Muslims in the West. In every Western street, they, in inaction, disobey God and worship the idol of Individualism. That is, to reiterate, there is no eedom of religion in the West: there is only freedom insofar as you are within the boundaries of the religion of Individualism, the idol god of modernity, the religion that aims to only empower the minority while disempowering the majority. All that are in the West worship the religion of Individualism, and all who live in the modern world eventually become modern. There is only one religion that is allowed: the A Religion... But what if the venerated minorities disagree? As Paulo Freire would concur, the most oppressed group at the very bottom of the chain is vindicated. The disagreement is settled on the basis of which of the two is more minor, which is closer to the tail. To this point, Muslims are a minority in the West. An immediate paradox occurs: how can there be Anti-LGBT groups and Anti-Muslim groups? Are not Muslim groups necessarily anti-LGBT and LGBT groups necessarily anti-Muslim? And are LGBT groups also not necessarily Anti-Christian? Of course, LGBT groups are not included in the list as hate groups even though their existence is essentially hate speech against Islam and Christianity, just as Jews aren’t: they are minorities. Muslim groups are also not included, ironically, as they are also minorities in the West, and there are no “Anti-Christian”

fr

ll

ll

ll

185

organizations, as then modernity itself would have to be categorized as the biggest hate group against Christianity. A society founded on Individualism can only nd fault in its majority: its minority can never be accused of any crime. Those with power are always evil: inversions ad in nitum...The paradox between Muslims and the LGBT is being played out today, but it is certain the LGBT will win the con ict in the same way Zionists won the con ict of minorities with the Palestinians: they are more minor. But, following from the ideology of inversion, those who become the new head sha be inverted by the new tail... 2 Increasingly, every group that doesn’t agree with the rising absurdities of Individualism will be listed as hate groups: soon enough, half of the US population will be a hate group, and this representative of the political split. To be in favor of progressivism, the future, no matter in what context, makes you good. To be in favor of conservatism, the past, no matter in what context, makes you evil. This puts into light the increasing hatred of men and masculinity in the West: every utterance of “toxic masculinity” is followed by “women empowerment”: the past was male, and the “future is female.” The SPLC lists “Male Supremacy” groups as hate speech, but there can be no Anti-male groups, just as there can be no Anti-Christian groups: these groups are “perpetrators” of the injustices of the past. Individualism, although seemingly a belief in equality, is outed as an ideology that empowers the minority and disempowers the majority: this displayed by the modern term “equity.” In the same way men must become feminized and women must become masculinized for there to be equality among the genders, the minority must be empowered and the majority must be disempowered for a society to be equal: the head must become the tail and the tail must become the head. This is the corrosive process the virus of Individualism takes within a

fi

ll

fl

fi

fl

3

186

society, and hitherto, every antidote to this virus has been disobeyed... The West achieves further consistency. 2 In 2022, the Bible itself was charged with hate speech in a case where a women of Christian faith decried homosexuality in protest of her “church’s” sponsorship of an LGBT event57. This case ended in an acquittal, but is currently being appealed. It is likely that the prosecutors believe that, as is the nature of trials of this sort to take a year or longer, the de nition of hate speech will continuously progress, alongside the process of inversion, towards a de nition that can criminalize the Bible itself. There can be no Christianity in the West just as there can be no Islam. One can arrive in the West as a Christian or Muslim, but one cannot remain a Christian or Muslim. The reason for this is two-fold. One, endless assaults of ideological insemination and moral degeneration in all areas of life. Everywhere, the idol god of Individualism is present, plastered, advertised, sold, worn, advocated, orated, ponti cated, educated, shouted, screamed, triggered, propagandized, cinematized, and enforced. As such, the faith of mind is constantly tested, and for a soldier who doesn’t ght back, the only eventuality is defeat. Which leads us to the second reason; he is unable to ght back. The system of laws that seemingly stand for freedom of faith and equality are the very ones restricting the religious man’s faith and his conception of “identity” that progress Philistines love to espouse. The religious man cannot practice his faith in the West. It will be said, “Oh, but this is not true! People can pray in the privacy of their homes and practice however they wish — as long as they don’t hurt anyone!”. This “indi erence” in our common sense we acquire from Thomas Paine

57

religious freedom institute

fi

fi

ff

:



fi

fi

fi

4

187

“Mind thine own concerns. If he believes not as thou believest, it is a proof that thou believest not as he believes, and there is no earthly power can determine between you. But Paine also says “Every child born in the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God. The world is this new to him as it was to the rst that existed, and his natural right in it is of the same kind. Well, Paine should apply his principle of indi erence to the people that don’t believe in his conception of natural rights — supposedly there is no earthly power that can determine between the two of you “if every one is left to judge of his own religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is wrong; but if they are to judge of each other’s religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is right; and therefore all the world is right, or all the world is wrong. And here, the hypocrisy is made clear: Paine asserts his own religion of Individualism, indi erence only insofar as it aligns with his “enlightened” beliefs — natural rights, independence, equality, freedom, liberal Individualism — and therefore, he forces people to not be indi erent in cases where belief disagrees with his belief of Individualism. Paine’s indi erence is a hypocrisy, a paradox. Modern man is obedient to the idol god of Individualism, he is enslaved to eedom. He cannot truly worship any religion but the religion of Individualism... But even operating under Paine’s standards, “hurt” used to only mean physical harm: one was indi erent as long as one’s practices did not physically harm another individual, harm being specially relegated to the domain of the individual rather than the collective: no longer is one held responsible to the collective, as a child, wife, or husband would be to a family, one is held responsible for nothing. Now, the regular Islamic and Christian

”

”

fi

ff

ff

:

:

fr

”

ff

ff

ff

188

belief,(verily this is a global belief) that homosexuality is a sin is increasingly being considered hate speech, and this because Western society follows the religion of Individualism that defends the man of degeneracy who would be punished in any other society for his disobedience to God. Naturally, in this society, the degenerative man is obeying God, and the religious man is the most disobedient. The degenerative man is rewarded by the god of this society, and the religious man is punished “Everything will it give you, if ye worship it, the new idol” (Thus Spake Zarathustra 2 When a Muslim or Christian sees a transgender walking down the street, he su ers a defeat, and the religion of Individualism acquires a victory. The religious man is meant to walk by, unassuming, un inching, and disobey his God — he is meant to be emasculated: his faith is to be emasculated. He cannot, as is his religious right, follow his faith and stop this display of disobedience to God and degeneration of the society: verily, his inaction is disobedience. He makes it clear he worships the modern covenant of the god of Individualism over his own God: what else can idol worship mean? A man can wear a shirt that says, “Jesus is gay” or some slur about the Prophet of Islam, and the religious man is expected to do nothing. For he has become a stranger in his own home, a home that will eventually collapse, with or without him in it. He is unable to practice his faith, to uphold his identity in the West, and the longer he stays, the more he becomes a follower of the A -Religion under the A -God, the more he leaves his family and becomes a member of the A -family, the rainbow family, the Jewish family: the family who trusts its members like the American trusts strangers.. 2

)

ff

.

ll

:

ll

ll

fl

5

6

189

To return to equity policies, it appears that the modern consensus is that AA provides the most bene t to black people and women, but this is not true. In line with the inversion of the head and the tail, AA aids the most minor of minorities the most. According to The Unz Review58 “We are therefore faced with the clear conundrum that Jewish students seem to constitute roughly 6 percent of America’s highest-ability high school graduates and non-Jewish whites around 65–70 percent, but these relative ratios di er by perhaps 1000 percent from the enrollments we actually nd at Harvard and the other academic institutions which select America’s future elites. Meanwhile, an ethnic distribution much closer to this apparent ability-ratio is found at Caltech, whose admissions are purely meritocratic, unlike the completely opaque, subjective, and discretionary Ivy League system so e ectively described by Karabel, Golden, and others. “Each year, the Ivy League colleges enroll almost 10,000 American whites and Asians, of whom over 3000 are Jewish. Meanwhile, each year the NMS Corporation selects and publicly names America’s highest-ability 16,000 graduating seniors; of these, fewer than 1000 are Jewish, while almost 15,000 are non-Jewish whites and Asians The distribution of racial acceptance to Ivy Leagues is of paramount signi cance regarding American leadership as Ron Unz, the founder of the site, notes “...what else can be said when for the last two decades almost all of the leaders of our most elite universities have been drawn from an ethnic community constituting just 2 percent of America’s population?

58

unz.com

fi

”

ff

”

:

”

fi

ff

fi

:

190

The ivy leagues are the factories for all the elite jobs in the US: senators, congressman, governors, CEOs, professors, university heads, nance, consulting, Wall-Street, banking, tech, lawyers, etc. These universities serve as a funnel for the most lucrative and important roles in directing and leading American society, and as such, we nd that AA serves the greatest role of balance (imbalance) in impacting who goes through this funnel — the greatest role of inverting the head and tail —, not to mention the incessant emphasis on social justice and equity repeatedly broadcast at the students who travel through it. If one enters an Ivy League not believing in the idol god of Individualism, then verily they, just like the religious man who enters the borders of America, wi be converted. The minority of minority is signi cantly overly represented, much more so than every other category, and their position at the bottom is their method to the top. Verily, they can already be considered the “head” of the modern world 2 To note, the website and people who elucidate this statistical truth are labelled as an “altright” white nationalist pseudoscience promoting Anti-Semites, the go-to labels for any group that doesn’t adhere to the values of equality. Interestingly, and paradoxically, one does not have to be white to be a white supremacist. Increasingly, even black people are apparently becoming white supremacists. Even though the websites founder is ethnically Jewish, he has been labelled, a common term nowadays, “a self-hating Jew,” the term used for any Jew that is not a Zionist, ranging from Soros to Chomsky, and I suppose from the purely Jewish perspective, the modern perspective that is, this can be considered true. The ADL notes “Conservative businessman Ron Unz has stirred controversy over the last year by publicizing ideas that appeal to anti-Semites; o ering a forum for writers who

:

fi

l

ff

fi

.

fi

7

191

demonize Israel and funding several anti-Israel activists, some of whom promote antiSemitic canards.59 The ADL cites a documents written by Nurit Baytch and Andrew Gelman “debunking” Unz’s claim60. Unz replies to the accusations of statistical inconsistency61, adjusting his numbers which still yield a substantial discrepancy “Thus, adjusting for the number of high ability students lowers the level of apparent Jewish over-representation to roughly 1,000%, a gure still comfortably above the 20% discrepancy threshold that helped spark a federal investigation in the late 1980s regarding Asian students. Wether or not the Unz’s nding are believed serves little importance for the sake of the argument. Even if Jews are not excessively over-represented, they are still over-represented as a consequence of AA, and the purpose of AA aligns with the core tenets of Individualism and the underlying pillars of Judaic morality that force a partiality to the minorities of society: equity. Verily, equity is another Jewish addition to our American ideas, one that Cahill forgets to mention: the empowerment of the bottom at the expense of the disempowerment of the top. The head becomes the tail and the tail becomes the head. Equity is the shoddily hidden actualizing force of Judaic morality, the policy of Exodus, and increasingly it becomes a part of every movement that aligns itself with what Western society believes to be “good.” Equity is the policy that brings us ever closer to salvation, to heaven on Earth, equality, the Open society, and as such, it can be considered one of the most powerful elements in the practice of “Tikkun Olam,” the practice of self-destruction.

adl.org columbia.edu 61 ronunz.org 59

60



fi

:

fi

”

”

192

2 AA is only one method of equity, albeit the most important, but there are several others, the most prominent of which are work quotas. Work quotas are discriminatory hiring practices focused on selecting applicants on the basis of appearance rather than merit. They have been prominently used to enable the entry of women into the workforce and into positions of authority they are not quali ed for, but also as a method of racial and sexual homogenization into the work environment. Naturally, by actively pursuing diversity — hiring based on appearance: pure and simple racism — the best applicants are not chosen, leading to the beginnings of the eventual decline of what might be considered the corporate community...which I suppose, may just be a great thing. To reiterate the American belief of racial homogeneity, in 2021, the proportion of S&P 100 diversity hires was 94% “The overall job growth included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.”62 To clarify, I don’t want people to claim that I believe minorities shouldn’t be hired or anything foolish like that. Rather, my belief is that the pursuit of racial homogeneity is super uous and a pursuit that will only make the divide within America greater and greater. If it is the case that multicultural and diverse communities are the least trusting, it is clear that corporate communities that are diverse and multicultural will become less trusting: distrust seeping into every domain of life. The solution is not to keep on going, constantly inverting, hoping through foolish sentimentality and optimism rooted in nothing but cowardice, continuing the crusade of human nurturing to change human nature, but rather, to understand that trust is built not through shared appearance, but through shared values,

62

bloomberg.com

:

fi

fl

8

193

and people cannot share the value that all values are equal, for homogeneity of such a value will only ever lead to further division. The pursuit of the all-family, all-culture, all-tradition, all-nation is super uous in all regards, unless it is rooted in that which roots a belief systems: God. Only with a true value system rooted in God, not a secular “universal” one, can people be more trusting and united. The pursuit of diversity of appearance as the belief system can only lead to self-destruction of any and all places it is sought 2 What has just been written, although a true explication of the nature of equity practices in America, will be labeled a variety of terms: most notably, “racist,” “anti-semitic,” “sexist,” etc. The reason these terms are the labels of signi cance used to silence people is that the minorities are valued more than the majority: the minorities are valued more than the truth. Modern morality is centered upon this paradigm, and the “racist,” “anti-semite,” and “sexist” are evil. To reiterate, to nd fault with the minority is IMPOSSIBLE in the West. The minority cannot be blamed or attacked: the minority/tail is sacred. It was once the opposite, the collective itself was sacred, the representation of the whole, the community and family, were cherished above all, but today, these structures are part of the relics of the past slotted for destruction. Adhering to the concept of Individualism means that there can be no co ective. The individual cannot be a part of the community — he is superior to the community. He is superior to the nation, the state, the community, and the family itself. The individual is everything, the co ective is nothing. As such, the mindset of an individualist society is directed to the bottom, towards those believed to be under the greatest oppressive force of some abstract systems of authority creating inequality. The truth, however, is that nature is unequal.

ll

ll

.

fi

fi

fl

ll

9

194

The systemic forces do not exist — they are articulations of the nature of inequality. The only way to make what is naturally unequal equal is to nurture a into sameness. As Paine said “Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect equality a ords no temptation. This, by Plato’s terms, and the collectivist paradigm, is injustice. According to this, the greatest acts of evil are not those that destroy the collective, the family, but acts that restrict the “natural rights” of the individual, and as the minority is conceived as the group of individuals that are most restricted, the greatest acts of evil are anything that restricts their autonomy, no matter what it is they choose to do with that autonomy. Justice inverted. This is not only true of the Jewish minority, but also increasingly true of the minority of blacks, Africans, LGBT, Hispanics, Muslims, etc in America and the West. For even for the crime that the member of the minority commits, the majority is found culpable. Even black people can be white supremacists.. 3 The nal matter I will discuss regarding the prioritization of the minority over the majority, the tail becoming the head, is the topic that is most censored in America: the topic that noone can talk about, lest they want to lose their job, livelihood, family, etc: Zionism. Why is it the case that people explicitly state their hatred of white people in various forms of media and merchandise, but even mild questioning of the political policies regarding a nation in the Middle East is responded to with such vitriol, rancor, and censorship? That even mild disagreement with Zionism makes one into an anti-semite, the single most evil thing one can be in the moral lexicon of Individualism? That even comparing the death of a single Jew to hundreds of thousands of non-Jews is a “minimization” and “moral blight?” Will it

,

ll

”

.

ff

fi

0

195

eventually be the case that not being a black supremacist is a form of racism, or is it already the case? The answer is that the our morality nds its character in the injustices of the past, the valuing of the lowest: America’s priorities are Jewish priorities. For those who are unaware, the US has been committed to providing billions of dollars of aid to Israel yearly, a number that began at $2.67 billion yearly, and has risen to $3.8 billion yearly today, and in total, America has provided over $150 billion dollars (that we know of) in assistance to Israel.63 42 of the 83 times a United Nations Resolution veto has been used by the US have been against resolutions condemning Israel. The UN is increasingly being corroded by liberal Individualism, and I suppose that the rest of the world has no choice in the matter considering the military strength of the Western individualist nations, speci cally America, and it’s increasingly becoming the case that the sovereignty of the UN as a board of “individual” nations has less and less impact on the actions of the United States. As dictated by former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley in response to UN resolution ES-10/19 in 2017 which declared the state of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “null and void” “Nikki Haley announced that the U.S. will move its embassy to Jerusalem and "no vote in the UN will make any di erence on that" and that the US was "by far the single largest contributor to the UN." She also warned that the US might also cut funding to the UN itself.” (wikipedia.org Israel has been condemned 45 times by the UN, but, as it is the country of the minority of minorities, it can do no wrong, though, the American global view of Individualism is the only thing buttressing its sovereignty. There are various reasons for American support for Israel ranging from geo-political and military strategic to “social justice” and “peace.”

fas.org

fi

:

fi

ff

196

)

63

Although some of these reasons are partially valid, they fall on their face when considered with a broader perspective. If it is the case that Israel is close to Russia, Turkey is closer. If it is the case that Israel is a necessity to peace in the Arab world, it can be easily argued that Israel is a provocateur of war in the Arab world, the sole reason there is not peace — verily, this has already been proven and continues to be the case: the distinction between “progressive” and “conservative” is super uous concerning the worship of the minority of minorities. Regardless of the argument made, the question remains: why is Israel of such importance to America? Why is that the American interests can be con ated with Israeli interests and vice-versa? Nikki Haley, a devout worshipper of Israel over her own country recently stated in relation to the reinvigoration of the Palestinian con ict that, “This is not just an attack on Israel—this was an attack on America.”64 Is a nation’s duty not rst and foremost to its own people? Why, then, is it the case that more money is spent on Israeli citizens than American citizens? It is my contention that Israel and its citizens are more important than American citizens. The reason cited for America’s support of Israel sovereignty is some notion of “Never Again!” in reference to the Holocaust, a motto that is the core of the Western moral compass and that has only further cemented the Western disdain for authority and duty, but the true reason for this synthesis is the aforementioned Anglo-Jewish convergence. In other words, America is a nation founded by the same ideology that gave the original Hebrews their freedom, and it is the application of reason to the founding ideology that has lead to it reaching its logical conclusions in the conceptions of an open society: unanimous yet super uous support for minorities — racial homogeneity, no true assistance —, and pursuit of further Individualism through the process of inverting the head and tail. The

64

x.com

fi

fl

fl

fl

fl

197

interests of America are Jewish interests. America is Jewish. This reason alone su ces for the questions of American involvement in Israel. 3 This is what is meant by Tikkun Olam, by progress, by Individualism, by “freedom of religion,” by equality, by equity, by multiculturalism, by diversity, by democracy: the becoming Jewish of the world. Though, to be fair, is it not the goal of the Christian to make the whole world Christian? The goal of the Muslim to make the whole world Muslim? There are two notable distinctions. One, that uniformity of Judaic values can only ever lead to the selfdestruction of any society founded on them, and two, that the goal for Christian and Muslim universality is no secret. Somehow, though the true reason will be revealed in the next chapter, the Judaic agenda has fallen into the crevices of human thought, censored and erased every-time it is brought up: the system is self-correcting. Since the minority is the most valued, and the minority of minorities are the Jewish, they can never be questioned. Verily, antisemitism is not a word denoting the hate of an individual, but simply the disagreement of an individual. To not be a Zionist is to be an Anti-semite. To not be a Jewish nationalist is to be an Anti-semite. Verily, in this manner, the incoming con ict of the future will likely be categorized by future historians as a war between “anti-semites” and “pro-semites,” semites themselves on both sides. 3 It is not my objective to paint Jews as controllers of the world: it is merely my goal, as it was Cahill’s (albeit through a di erent connotation — he did not know what these values truly meant), to demonstrate that the belief the modern world was constructed through the impartial e ort of rationality is false, and that these values lead directly to the self-

ffi

fl



ff

ff

1

2

198

destruction of any and all who believe them. It is my goal to raise the curtain that has been cast over the West and reveal its true foundations in Judaic morality, the origin of its “universal” Individualism as nothing more than an application of Greek rationality upon Jewish revelation, the de nition of progress as obtained from the conception of an end for history, a destiny for mankind, a material salvation for mankind in the Kingdom of God brought to Earth from Judaism, and the conclusion of this material salvation as destruction of all that characterizes the species “homo-sapien.” Fukuyama says man has reached the “end of history,” but the truth is, we have only reached the end of Judaism. Democracy is the political articulation of the Judaic ideology of Individualism and capitalism is its economic expression. All that the Western world founds itself upon is a notion of freedom inherited from a secular reading of Exodus, and its cultural ego-centricity and inability to understand reason has imbued it with the belief that the entire world has the same beliefs and notions. It is my goal, as it was Cahill’s, to demonstrate that the West is Jewish. That it believes in the secularized God of Individualism, an ideology that is poisonous and corrosive precisely in its necessity to spread to a societies. That we are a superorganism that is Paradox, and our end has been written in our beginning. I suppose it could be said that I am writing this in favor of a closed society, but it has been proven that there is no such thing as an Open society. The principle at the very core of Individualism and the desire for freedom, the one that must be dislodged from its archaic depths, the one that is to blame for the devastation of modernity, is “disobedience to authority”: Exodus om God. To repeat myself, what is it that caused the Fall of Man from the Garden of Eden? Disobedience to Authority. This is the rst message of the Bible and ironically, it is the rst man has forgotten. In our secularization, we have picked apart the Old Testament like a critical vulture, choosing what we like and discarding what

fi

fr

fi

fi

ll

199

we don’t: religion is not a bu et and life is not fair. This is the grand covenant of existence that God imparts upon man: that existence is cruel, it is full of su ering, that stru le is a necessity, that mankind cannot become god, and salvation is found not in the external pursuits of hedonism, materialism, and comfort — a material socialist construction of “Heaven on Earth” — but within the Spirit of man, a spirit that the modern world has abounded in favor of materialism. The principle at the core of Individualism is disobedience to authority: it is the revolt of the child against the Father, but God is the ultimate Father and he can never be overthrown: man can only be punished for his e orts. Modernity is God’s greatest punishment and the disease of Nihilism is his greatest plaque. The creed of an individual relationship with God was imparted to man by Jesus Christ, but the Individualism that Jesus preached and the Individualism of modernity are not one and the same. Modern Individualism was born with a rotten core, one from the poison of human imperfection, the venom of his earthly body, and this poison has been spreading for 3000 years: it is the poison that will eradicate the human species. What then is the antidote to this cancer? It has been implicitly and explicitly stated, but it is symbolically represented by the man who concluded Judaism: the ful ller of the law: the deliverer: the rst Christian: the Messiah: Jesus Christ

gg

.

ff

ff

fi

ff

fi

200

201

202

Chapter Seve Restoratio

n

n

203

is a reason both the secularized form of Judaism, America, and the modern religious forms of Judaism, Reform Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, etc, are in full ideological and political alignment: they possess the same ideological beginning. Today most Jews in Israel, and around the world, are secular — verily, some of the most famous people of modernity have been secular Jews: Marx, Popper, Chomsky, Soros, Trotsky, Friedman, Freud — the list is endless. Interestingly, the more detached from the Jewish faith one is, at least according to the de nition of the ADL, the more of an anti-semite they are, which paradoxically, makes them an even greater Jew. Soros and Popper are/were both against Zionism (as was Chomsky) and this because of the natural logic of an Open society: its goal of One nation naturally contradicts the Zionist construction of a closed society “Popper's ambivalence about being Jewish, despite being victimized by anti-Semitism and being forced into exile, was not accompanied by analogous ambivalence about Zionism. Jewish nationalism was both “stupid” and “wrong” racial pride like so many other nationalisms”65 This naturally makes complete sense — how can the rst advocate of the Open society stand for a movement that is directed towards the construction of a Closed society? Ironically, Alan Dershowitz, referenced earlier in the book, wrote a scathing op-ed on Popper’s protege, asking “Why are so many prominent Jews defending George Soros – a virulent antiZionist who has never been friendly to the Jewish people

65

cambridge.org

”

:

fi

,

204

fi

1

To state monolithically Judaism is the religion of Individualism: its essence is self-destruction. There

Soros, like Popper, are representative of the paradox of Judaism. Dershowitz, a Jewish nationalist, quotes Farley Weiss “Soros’s defenders try to shut down criticism of the billionaire by claiming it is antisemitic because Soros himself is Jewish. But no one has nanced more destructive attacks on Israel and the American Jewish community than Soros. He is, at best, a selfhating Jew, and shouldn’t be let o the hook because of his ancestry. Paradoxically, Dershowitz condemns the “bigotry” of conservatives who like to paint Soros at fault for the woes of the modern world as the mastermind in the shadows, but himself writes “The impact of this demonization cannot be overstated: HRW[Human Rights Watch] has done more to turn the international community and progressives against Israel than any other organization. This is ALL Soros’s fault, and Soros is justly condemned for shifting this paradigm against Israel. It seems Dershowitz himself believes people can be held responsible for their actions, and I suppose that is refreshing to hear, considering his profession. The broad point I’m making here is that “secular” Jews often align themselves on the side of “equality” and “freedom,” the side of liberal democracy, but ironically, that sti makes them faithful worshipers of Judaism. Secularity is merely a continuance from the original tradition of liberation: it is Exodus om God...

66

jpost.com

fr

”

fi

ll

”

ff

:

205

,

2

"Well, not this Jew. I refuse to defend Soros...”66

It is clear Judaism and America share the same beginning but I contend that they share the same end as we . The foundational element of America and Jerusalem is the corrosive force of liberal Individualism, the poison that naturally leads to the internal self-destruction of every collective it is administered within. Judaism itself is the poison that destroys all collectives, including its own, for the paradigm of “chosen,” although painted by Popper and Fukuyama as a relic of tribalism, is actua y the prime element of Individualism. To be precise, the notion of being chosen exists in both the collectivist and individualist paradigms, but in the collectivist paradigm, it is the belief that the entire collective is chosen — which, if the collective includes humanity, is the belief that a of humanity is chosen — while in the individualist paradigm, it is the belief that the individual himself is chosen: that the individual is more valuable than the co ective. In the collectivist paradigm, the belief of being chosen requires the unity of the world under one belief system to reach consistency: in the individualist paradigm, the belief reaches immediate consistency. This is the natural proliferation of such an idea rooted in disobedience to authority: one arrives at himself as god: nihilism. This clari cation also makes clear that the notion of an “All-family” is IMPOSSIBLE under in the individualist paradigm, for within the paradigm there is an unavoidable fundamental paradox: that people will always hold that they are more important than the collective, than the all-family: the method of uniting necessarily divides. Judaism naturally and paradoxically undoes itself. Verily, in the individualist social structure, the family can be sacri ced for the individual, the community can be sacri ced for the individual, the nation can be sacri ced for the individual, a of humanity can be sacri ced for the individual. This is the poison, the self-evident conclusion of Individualism, the reason for its

fi

fi

ll

ll

fi

ll

fi

ll

fi

l

206

can only be one God.

In the collectivist paradigm however, the All-family is possible. In fact, it is the natural conclusion of the social structure. All are included in the family, as long as a believe in the same uniting belief: obedience to the ultimate authority of God. In this structure, the individual is sacri ced for the family, the individual is sacri ced for the community, the individual is sacri ced for the nation, the individual is sacri ced for mankind...

The last statement should resonate with true Christians: it is the story of Jesus Christ. Jesus recti es the paradox of Individualism within Judaism by proving through his actions that the co ective is more important than the individual, even if that individual is the son of God. Jesus himself is the antidote to Individualism. He is the restoration, the deliverance, the beginning and the end: he is what enables the rebirth of mankind.

To backtrack a little and provide more exposition on the Individualism of Judaism, the nature of their historical expulsions is important. There are various claims on the number of times Jewish people have been expelled from societies, the number 109 often cited as “antiSemitic,” but even if there are anti-Semites who use the number with hate in mind, the truth of the matter is important. Wether or not the number is 109, or even in the triple digits, is irrelevant: they have been expelled numerous times as evidenced by Jewish sources and material67 as well as the general global stigma surrounding Jewish people that has existed 67

jewishvirtuallibrary.org

ll

fi

fi

ll

fi

fi

207

fi

3

4

5

inability to reach consistency for mankind: it can only reach consistency in one man: there

far before the advent of the internet. The expulsions themselves are prophesied in the Old Testament “And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds...Moreover, I will make you a desolation and an object of reproach among the nations all around you and in the sight of all who pass by. ” (Ezekiel 5:10-14 The reason for Jewish expulsion is two-fold. One, the inability for the group to assimilate to the values of the society they were in, and two, their belief that they are superior to the society they are in: they not only combust other communities, but their own as we . Secularly speaking, Judaism and America are founded in the same way: the self-evident belief in the equality of people naturally leads to the belief that the individual is more valuable than the co ective, inevitably leading to internal divide among families, communities, and the nation at large: Individualism is sectarianism. This is the cold hard truth of such a belief. Even during the age of Jesus, the Jews were divided among themselves, their Kingdom having already split, and internal factions proliferated: the fracturing of Judaism into closed groups: the Essenes, Zealots, Sadducees, Pharisees, etc. Judaism itself is a paradox the same nature of America: in uniting, it divides. The obstinacy and sti -necked-ness of the Hebrews cannot be considered anything but their disobedience to authority and the valuing of their own lives over a things: “Didn’t we say to you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians’? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!” (Exodus 14:12

l

ff



)

:

)

ll

ll

208

“Come here and make us a god who will go before us, because, as for this fellow Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has become of him.” (Exodus 32:1 “The Lord told Moses, “Go down immediately, because your people whom you led out of Egypt have behaved corruptly. They have been quick to turn aside from the way I commanded them, and they have made for themselves a molten calf. They have bowed down to it in worship, they have o ered sacri ces to it, and they have said, ‘This, Israel, is your god who brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” Then the Lord told Moses, “I’ve seen these people and indeed they’re obstinate. Now let me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may consume them, but I’ll make a great nation of you.” (Exodus 7-10 The covenant of God made with the Hebrews was constructed in order to correct the individualist and sel sh nature of the Hebrews, a nature nding its origin in the belief of the ultimate worth of the individual and which naturally causes the decay of any and all communities. It was a necessity for them to obey after being freed, for if they did not obey it, they would surely divide among themselves once more “Now it came about in those days, when Moses had grown up, that he went out to his fellow Hebrews and looked at their hard labors; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his fellow Hebrews. So he looked this way and that, and when he saw that there was no one around, he struck and killed the Egyptian, and hid his body in the sand. Now he went out the next day, and behold, two Hebrews were ghting with each other; and he said to the o ender, “Why are you striking your companion?” But he said, “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?”” (Exodus 11-14

)

)

fi

:

fi

fi

ff

)

fi

ff

209

Accordingly, God orates the punishment for continued disobedience of the Israelis even within their own Kingdom “Thus says the Lord God: This is Jerusalem. I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. And she has rebelled against my rules by doing wickedness more than the nations, and against my statutes more than the countries all around her; for they have rejected my rules and have not walked in my statutes. Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you are more turbulent than the nations that are all around you, and have not walked in my statutes or obeyed my rules, and have not even acted according to the rules of the nations that are all around you, therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, even I, am against you. And I will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again.Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.” (Ezekiel 5:5-10 Even while the Hebrews were enslaved, unity among them was impossible. Their obstinacy prevented it, and verily, the only fear they possessed was fear of losing their lives. This notion of fear of life is what grounds the distinction between what Nietzsche would describe as slave and master morality. The slave, in willing to do anything to live, will even sacri ce the lives of his “loved” ones: dishonor. The Sonderkommandos are a stark display of this mentality.68 The master, more aptly termed “the man of honor,” would rather die than act sel shly. Such a man is willing to defend not only the people around him, but his values. In

68

wikipedia.org

)

:

fi

fi

210

willing to do anything to live, the slave makes clear he values himself over a things — over even God. This is what disobedience means. To be truthful, Nietzsche’s misunderstanding was twofold: the Will to Power applies not to individuals/organism, but co ectives/superorganisms, and that the faith he condemned was not the proliferator of slave morality, but the corrector. Christianity was not a making of all man into slaves, people of dishonor, but of making people into masters: people with the honor and duty to die for things other than themselves. The obedience of the original Hebrews towards God was seemingly not genuine: it was only a re ection of fear of death. In freeing the Hebrews, God gives Moses the 10 Commandments, the set of rules that would hopefully ensure homogeneity and Collectivism among the Hebrews, rules that had obedience to God at the pinnacle of importance. When Jesus is asked what the most important commandments are, the rst is not the Golden Rule, treating others as you would like to be treated, the rule that naturally leads to homogeneity of values, but rather, love for God: obedience towards God “‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and rst commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’” (Matthew 22:36-40 The second commandment is the law of undoing human sel shness, only possible if people are obedient to the same ultimate authority. America believes in the second rule, but the rst is a necessity to the second. Individualism and altruism are incompatible.This is what is not understood in the desire for diversity and multiculturalism: that it cannot be the monism,

fi

ll

ll

fi

fi

:

)

fi

fl

211

but under the Monism. The state of a airs in Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the Second Temple is described as such “Prior to the destruction, sectarianism reigned supreme. The nation divided itself into many distinct sects – the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots and Sicarii – and even more sub-factions within these sects. The people showed endless kindness to members of their own factions, but scorned and hated those whose values and beliefs threatened their own. They saw the world in black and white; there was no middle road. It was a zero-sum game of ideological intolerance. The hatred and in ghting in Jerusalem was so disastrous on the eve of destruction that Josephus described the society as “a great body torn in pieces””(The Jewish War, Book 5:1 A great body torn in pieces: the collective of the superorganism self-destructing.Why is it that the Hebrews were so sectarian, so divided among themselves even with the clear covenant of God, a division that verily re ects current socio-political state of America as well as the impending civil war in Israel (only circumvented with a con ict that was likely engineered by those who stand the most to gain...)? The poison of Collectivism: the ideology of Individualism present within their society, the belief of being chosen. To repeat, Judaism selfdestructs Judaism. This internal division and belief that the individual is more valuable than the collective is the reason for Jewish expulsion in history: their inability as a people to remain united and obedient to anyone but themselves. Verily, the political divisions in Jerusalem at the start of the rst millennia re ect the political divisions of both modern day Jerusalem, religious Judaism, and America, rational Judaism. The only belief that can propel

fl

fl

ff

fl

fi

:

fi

)

212

over the collective, over God, and the only conclusion is self-destruction...or rebirth...

Jesus came to ful ll the original Law, to resolve the paradoxes present with Judaism and enable the structure of society and faith necessary to preserve the existence of the Hebrews as a collective “‘Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to ful ll...“For I say to you that unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.’”(Matthew 5:17-20 Among the sects of the Hebrews, animosity was so great that groups were treating each other like progressives and conservatives treat one another in America “The Second Temple era War Scroll, found near the Dead Sea in the caves of Qumran, suggests an answer. The text, likely written by the Essenes, describes its followers as “the sons of light” and all others — including fellow Jews — as “the sons of darkness””69 Such friction was so strong that there a term was constructed to describe it: Sinat Chinam: causeless hatred. In order to rectify the Hebrews causeless hatred, Jesus introduces the paradigm of causeless love “‘You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His

69

mizrachi.org

)

:

:

fi

fi

213

:

6

this notion of sectarianism is disobedience, disobedience rooted in valuing the individual

(Matthew 5:43-45 The only way to truly construct the All-family of mankind is to be united under God, to treat the stranger as family, to love the stranger as family. Only this, and nothing else, enables the uniting thread of trust that is necessary for not only collective well-being, but individual well-being, a thread that can only be held intact by the most important of all commandments: obedience to God. Only by loving the collective over yourself, loving God, as God is that which unites the collective, over yourself, can the sin of sel shness and greed — Individualism — be wiped away. Jesus abolishes the worship of the self, the fear of death that de nes the mentality of a slave, and restores mankind: rebirth. The only way for the paradox of the Hebrews to be undone — the Individualism that would eternally lead to their collective self-destruction — was to invert the inversion of Individualism: to make clear that the co ective is more valuable than the individual 7 What else can we gain from the sacri ce of Jesus Christ than the precise notion that the life of the individual human, even if he be a prophet or the son of God, is less valuable than the co ective? Verily, this is what is meant by the rst will be last and the last rst “Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles domineer over them; and their people in high position exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you; rather, whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant; and whoever wants to be rst among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10: 42-45

)

:

fi

fi

fi

.

fi

)

fi

ll

214

ll

fi

sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.’”

collectives, from as small as the family and to as large as all of mankind. The father who is rst serves, his authority makes him a servant of his family, and if he serves himself over his family, then verily, his family dies om within. The cross is the symbol that acts as the uniting thread of all collectives: it is that which recti es the paradox of Individualism of Judaism and is the only salvation for America, the nation born with the same paradox. The cross is the antidote for the West, and such a symbol does not mean a material pursuit of Heaven of Earth, but rather an internal return to the Kingdom of God.

The Judaic notion of a Heaven on Earth is undone through Jesus Christ: man cannot return to a material Garden of Eden. He cannot abdicate on his responsibility to his body, cannot return Eve to the rib of Adam. He cannot, through socialism, the secular construction of a secular Jew, return to a labor-less paradise. God’s punishment is not only the material Fall from Eden, but the inability to return. Stru le is a necessity for human existence — paradox is his lot. This punishment cannot be run from, it cannot be circumvented in the disobedient attempt to construct Heaven on Earth, and all attempts to do so can only be characterized as sin, sin that leads not only to the decay of the individual, but of the collective as well. Only though obedience to God can one return to the Kingdom of God, for verily, that which man has confused with material progress was always spiritual progress “‘Now He was questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, and He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.’” (Luke 17:20-21)

:

fi

gg

215

fr

fi

8

This mentality of authority as service is what enables the continuance of any and all

Garden of Eden, to a place where a are in childlike obedience “Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the esh is esh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”” (John 3:3-8 This is what is by Jesus’ Individualism: the rebirth of the individual leading to the rebirth of the co ective. Jesus is the beginning and the end: he is the inversion of the inversion: he himself is the restoration. Jesus is the individual that portrays Co ectivism in contrast to the Hebrews who were the co ective that portrayed Individualism. Judaism made earth into Hell and the pursuit of the material Kingdom of God the de nition of progress, of history, and Jesus restored mankind by making the pursuit of the Kingdom of God into He , and the Earth itself into the domain of Heaven: the Kingdom of God within man and not in some future utopia. Jesus is the restoration, the rst and the last, the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the rst and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Revelations 22:13 Jesus undoes the paradox of Individualism and bestows on mankind the method of salvation, the true method of the All-Family through him

:

ll

)

.

ll

:

fi

fi

ll

fi

)

ll

fl

216

ll

fl

Man returns not to the material Garden of Eden in the beginning of time, but to the spiritual

male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) The cycle Strauss talks about was resolved by Jesus “Repentance is return; redemption is restoration. A perfect beginning—the faithful city—is followed by defection, decline, sin; and this is followed by a perfect end. But the perfect end is the restoration of the perfect beginning: the faithful city at the beginning and at the end. At the beginning, men did not roam a forest left to themselves, unprotected and unguided. The beginning is the garden of Eden. Perfection results in the beginning—in the beginning of time, the oldest time. Hence perfection is sought derivatively in the old time—in the father, the father of fathers, the patriarchs...The life of the Jew is the life of recollection...” The end and beginning of time is sought by modern Judaism and America in the material world, but that has always been an error: Jesus himself is that beginning and end. Verily, that is the good news of the New Testament. The restoration and rebirth of mankind, the undoing of the inversion, the resolution of the paradox, the consummation of the method of salvation symbolized in the necessary cruci xion of Jesus Christ, and the one and only method to the A -Family. What is the Garden of Eden? A place of childlike bliss, where man is eternally obedient to God and the collective, never encountering the sins of existence: this is the return to the beginning that Jesus enables. This is the rebirth of the collective as the Kingdom of God. This is what is meant by the moniker Messiah: the deliverer of Judaism..

:

fi




ll

217

.

9

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no

The Nihilism of modernity is a consequence of failing to understand the message of Jesus: it is the failure of restoration. Exodus repeats, the Individualism of the original Hebrews repeats, and verily, the curses of the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy continue to fall upon man: man himself continues to fa . The internal division of the Jews of the Kingdom of Israel is evident once more in the United States of America, the rebirth of Judaism, and the modern man is faithless “‘I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he nd faith on earth?’” (Luke 18:8 A broad perspective of all these events leaves one thought in man’s mind: are the conditions of the modern day the same as the conditions of the rst appearance of Jesus? If the end of Judaism was to be Jesus, is the end of America not also Jesus? The deliverer of mankind to return and complete what man had forsaken? Is the Second Coming near? “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.” (Thessalonians 2:8 “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.” (Revelation 1:7 “The one who overcomes, and the one who keeps My deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are shattered, as I also have received authority from My Father; and I will give him the morning star.” (Revelation 2:26 1

)



fi

)

)

l

:

fi

)

0

218

The Open society, the construction of the A -Family, is only possible through the one thing the Open society divorces itself from: obedience to an Ultimate Authority. When God says, “I AM THAT I AM “I SHALL BECOME WHAT I SHALL BECOME,” it is a proclamation of what can be considered the eternal truth of existence: that God is the answer. God is the contraction that solves all contradictions, the paradox that solves all paradoxes: God is that which is consistent and complete. To summarize, Jesus is restoration of God, a restoration of the structure of Collectivism that can only exist with obedience to God. Jesus restores mankind and justice, ful lls the law, and provides Salvation by inverting the inversion. It is self-evident that his word has not been followed, the same disobedience and sectarian impulse characterized by the inversion of Individualism still present within mankind...but perhaps then, his Second Coming is self-evident too...





ll

fi

”

219

220

221

Chapter Eigh Zionism and Globalis

m

t

222

of for chapters now: the seemingly contradictory antagonism between secular Jews such as Chomsky, Popper, Soros, Finkelstein — “self-hating Jews” — and Zionist Jews. Of course, the ideology of Individualism makes clear super uous divisions, but what is the reason for this main division, a division that can be categorized as Zionism versus Globalism, as all modern Jews are only for one of these two goals. Verily, this division is representative of what can be considered the monolithic question of political philosophy: the question of Modernity itself. How can the Jews of modernity be so split amongst one another? How can terms such as “self-hating Jew” even exist? Why does the division of the Jewish people proliferate even to this day, when they have “reclaimed” “their” “Holy Land?” The distinction here is the same as national socialism versus socialism: it is a matter of inclusion. Judaism diverges at this one point. What is the fundamental belief that enables Individualism and the Inversion? That “man is made in the image of God,” that he is of ultimate worth. The divergence is quite clear and simple: Zionism is Judaism proceeding from the ancient misconstrued origin: that only the Jews are chosen, that only they are of ultimate worth. As related earlier, Zionism is pure and simple ethno-nationalism, discrimination against all who are not Jewish: Jewish supremacism, selective Individualism. Coming into existence towards the end of the 19th century, the movement was unlawfully granted Palestinian land in 1948, commemorated by the Nakba Day: the Palestinian catastrophe. From that point onward, the Zionist occupiers of Palestinian territory, through the strength of the American military (certainly they were and are still incapable of buttressing their own sovereignty) have slowly stolen more and more land from the Palestinians, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions,

223

fl

1

There is a grand paradox here that I’m certain well-informed people have been making note

repeating the oppression that mankind had just said “Never Again!” to: becoming the Nazis of the 21st century. Though, the impact of the Zionist movement is most certainly not only in the Gaza Strip but all over the Middle East, the current state of division and hostility of the area is directly attributable to Zionist groups in uencing American foreign policy and military involvement. From a broad perspective, it is clear that the Palestinians are the modern Jews. They are the most oppressed group on the planet; their land is constantly stolen from them, killed mercilessly, and made the target of what can only be considered a genocide, ethnic cleansing, but don’t take my word for it “European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people. The Zionists have not invented anything new in this respect.” (Noam Chomsky, On Palestine This is the greatest inversion of all: the Zionist Jews as the Egyptians oppressing the Palestinians as the Hebrews. How can it be that such a thing is possible under the Jewish faith and Jewish people themselves? How can a people whose history is marked so heavily by catastrophe and oppression commit the very same acts to another group? Here, we understand the division between Zionist and Globalist even more coherently as Globalist Jews are in support of Palestine “In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid,” Chomsky says. “To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by 'apartheid' you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse...” (Chomsky70

democracynow.org

)

:

fl

:

224

)

70

“The Zionists indeed learnt well from the Nazis. So well that it seems that their morally repugnant treatment of the Palestinians, and their attempts to destroy Palestinian society within Israel and the occupied territories, reveals them as basically Nazis with beards and black hats” (Norman Finkelstein “Of all the countries bene ting from European civilization, only South Africa and Israel have racial laws that distinguish between rights of di erent groups of citizens. The Jews were against Hitler's racism, but theirs goes one step further. They determine Jewishness by mother alone. I opposed Zionism initially because I was against any form of nationalism, but I never expected the Zionists to become racists. It makes me feel ashamed in my origin: I feel responsible for the deeds of Israeli nationalists.” (Karl Popper, Karl Popper: Biography, background, and early reactions to Popper's work Soros himself was booed at a Jewish event for his support for the Palestinian cause (the only sources of the event are Zionist) “...billionaire-philanthropist Hungarian Holocaust survivor George Soros embarrassed the host institution and shocked its supporters by politicizing the evening with a rambling “editorial” about victims of violence and abuse becoming perpetrators of violence, suggesting that this model applies to the Israelis vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian con ict. There were angry walkouts and loud booing that drowned out a sprinkling of applause”71 This is more relevant than ever, as I’m concluding this book as what may be the beginning of another war in the Middle East, the possible completion of the Zionist extermination of

71

forward.com

)

)

ff

:

fi

fl

225

World War..

To understand the Zionist divergence of Judaism — the exclusive belief that only Jews are chosen — we must return to their political beginning. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was approved by the Jewish People’s Council on May 14, 1948, the day before Nakba day. The Declaration reads “This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State. That is, the State is established as an ethno-state, as a place that only Jews can live, and in this sense, it is no di erent than Nazi Germany. “THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the bene t of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. This last excerpt can be deceiving. People may stand up and cheer the liberality of the Jewish state, its openness, tolerance, and diversity of culture, language, religion, etc, but this is a shallow reading: the Declaration grants such things only to Jews. This is no di erent than the national socialism of Nazi Germany. Equality to people, but only their people. The Zionist

fi

ff

fl

”



:

ff

.

226

”

2

Palestinians, and the striking of the spark that will envelop the world in the ame of a new

divergence is simply exclusivity of the belief that man is made in the image of God: it is the belief that only Jews are valuable: selective Individualism. How can this be understood as anything but plain and clear ethno-nationalistic supremacy? Israel Shahak, another “selfhating Jew”/ masochist, makes clear the hypocrisy of Zionism in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years written in 1994. Referred to as “one of the most remarkable individuals in the contemporary Middle East,” by Edward Said, Shahak was a professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a critic of Zionism. In his book, he wrote as such about the double standard of Zionism and Israel “I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britain would regard it as antisemitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a "Christian state," belonging only to citizens o cially de ned as “Christians.” “In its regulations the JNF denies the right to reside, to open a business, and often to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he is not Jewish. At the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or opening businesses anywhere in Israel. If applied in another state against the Jews, such discriminatory practice would instantly and justi ably be labelled antisemitism and would no doubt spark massive public protests. He also makes explicit the exclusionary and racist nature of the Jews and their Talmudic practices, asserting that the Talmud, a rabbi written text of Jewish law rst established in 200 C.E., 200 years after the cruci xion of Jesus Christ, is held much higher in reverence and worship than the Old Testament. Shahak makes clear, to an almost horrifying degree, the notion that any life that is not Jewish is essentially worthless under Talmudic law

:

fi

”

:

fi

ffi

fi

fi

”

227

“This ban extends also to marrying a woman converted to Judaism, because all Gentile women are presumed by the Halakhah to be prostitutes. “Maimonides allowed Jews, in the name of the Jewish religion, to abduct Gentile children into slavery “When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite di erent. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all. "'Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, "one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice . . . there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly." He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews “Rabbi Shim'on used to say: "The best of Gentiles, kill him; the best of snakes, dash out its brains. “And if it is queried [because] in another place it was said The best of Gentiles kill him, then the answer is that this [saying] is meant for wartime." “And throughout it is taken for granted that it is all right to deceive Gentiles rather than treat them, so long as "hostility" can be averted. This exclusionary quality of Talmudic Judaism is appalling when considering the Old Testament where it is written “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9

”

”



”

ff

)

”

:

”

”

228

“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not su er sin upon him.Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:17-18 But of course, the sojourner and neighbor are considered to be Jewish, a sentiment re ected from the most in uential Jewish rabbi Maimonides “As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war . . . their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: "neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow" but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow. “The consensus of halakhic authorities is that the term "Gentiles" in the above doctrine refers to all non- Jews. We realize that the inversion of Individualism was only selectively applied, that the original Jews believed solely themselves to be of ultimate worth and made in the image of God: this is the same belief all prideful groups adopt: themselves chosen above all others. No matter what is said and no matter who has said it, all that has been quoted here will be considered by American media (Jewish media) to be not only “anti-Semitic” but conspiracy and falsehood, and to be truthful, truth is of no interest to these people. If a “gentile” speaks the truth, he is an anti-Semitic Nazi who has had his brain lled with conspiracies, no matter if he is repeating what countless Jews themselves have said/written and what is explicated explicitly, and if it is a Jew who is the perpetrator of truth, he is simply a “self hating” masochist. The question of censorship immediately becomes of extreme importance, as even if the truth was to be revealed, it would be censored, misconstrued, and hidden by the media sources of

fl

”

:

fi

”

ff

)

fl

229

the West who have numerous Zionist in uences, as made self-evident by this most recent October con ict in Palestine. X has become the greatest asset in revealing this truth. In enabling complete free speech and making it through the monetary attacks of the ADL and the mainstream media, X has been able to showcase, by allowing a speech, the exact extent at which Western media is governed by Zionist in uence. With this in mind consider the degree to which all the information and media about the Middle East and American intervention has been nothing but propaganda. 3 Zionism is the continuance of the Judaic creed of Individualism, the restriction of the belief that all men are created in the image of God to solely the Jews, and it is this creed that persists in the occupied territory of Israel and the media of the United States: it is the restriction of the inversion of Exodus to one occurrence: history in this paradigm is the eventual becoming the ultimate head by the Jews, never to be inverted themselves, a history that can be adopted by any group as their own... If you choose not to believe Shahak, Popper, Chomsky, Soros, Finkelstein, ne, but the Israeli Declaration leaves nothing to be questioned regarding the explicit fact that Israel is the attempt at an ethno-nationalist state rooted in a religious and secular belief of Jewish supremacy. The ADL is a Zionist puppet and they spend all their time condemning white nationalist groups but never recognize themselves as the same criminals they are judging. Perhaps this is because they too believe the Jewish people are the superior race and their e orts of “social justice,” like all other Jewish groups that are pro social justice as well as Zionist, are merely a cover “How else can we explain the enthusiasm displayed by so many American rabbis in support of, let us say, Martin Luther King, compared with their lack of support for the

:

ll

ff

fl

fl

fi

fl

230

rights of Palestinians, even for their individual human rights? How else can we explain the glaring contradiction between the attitudes of classical Judaism toward non- Jews, which include the rule that their lives should not be saved except for the sake of Jewish interest, with the support of the U.S. rabbis and organized Jews for the rights of the Blacks? After all, Martin Luther King and the majority of American Blacks are non- Jews.” (Shahak Though the Jewish support for these marginalized groups is only a cover for some, for this is where the opposing side of the modern division of Jews comes into play: the Globalist Jews (who are always secular). If the Zionists believe only Jews are of ultimate worth, the Globalist Jews believe a are of ultimate worth. Truthfully, the attacks on Popper since the start of the book have been done in bad faith for the essence of his idea is pure and good, but he failed to realize his Open society would only lead to further and further divisions — that it was rooted in the same self-destructive ideology as Zionism: Individualism. Globalism is the Christian ethic, that a are of ultimate worth, that a are chosen, but it is secular: it rejects God. Of course, worth and authority cannot be con ated, as Jesus makes clear and Popper failed to understand. The typical globalist narrative nds its root in the same place as Zionism: Exodus. This not only in its hatred of authority, but because it itself is the Exodus om God: secularism. It believes in the abolition of authority because it believes inequality is necessarily the inequality of authority, rather than of value, and this abolition begins with God. This is the reason for the pursuit of equality among men and women, and the policies of equity: to destroy all sources of inequality that create hierarchies of authority, and the greatest and most important hierarchy is that of God the Father. Where Zionism is one Exodus, the globalist method is constant Exoduses until a pyramids are attened: until there is

fr

fl

ll

ll

fi

fl

ll

)

ll

231

consequence is self-evident. Where the ZIonists pursue material Heaven on Earth for solely Jews, the globalists pursue material Heaven for all mankind, not realizing that the path to this material Heaven is the path to self-destruction. This globalist notion has the Christian idea of universality in one Family as a motivator, but it, in “liberating” itself from God, prevents itself from every being able to construct such a thing, and verily, it misunderstands the foundational notion of Christianity and the most important commandment as orated by Jesus: obedience to the Total Authority of God the Father.

Authority is a necessity for all human structures and it begins at the very base structure: the family. The injurious uses of authority propelling the injustices that de ne the core essence of Western morality — the Egyptians, Normans, British, white Imperialists, Nazis, Israelis — are the motivating factors for every story of Exodus that is a quality of human civilization, and it is precisely this constant reoccurrence of Exodus that is the core of the question of political philosophy for not only the West, but the entire world. It is essentially the question of the Minority. A collective can only exist harmoniously if all believe in the same values, but those who don’t believe in those values are always oppressed, motivating an eventual Exodus that will result in the inversion of oppressor and oppressed, purporting the cycle anew: the Hebrews become the Egyptians and the Egyptians become the Hebrews: the head becomes the tail and the tail becomes the head. Prior injustices prompt oppressed groups of people to revolt, Exodus, and subsequently become their own authority, and the same system continues to proliferate when the once oppressed group oppresses another, as the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians (the Palestinians as the modern Jews that will invert

fi

232



4

no head or tail, no oppressor or oppressed. But the family itself is a pyramid, and the

the Israelis, the modern Egyptians) and the Anglo-Saxons did to Black Americans. Political philosophy is the question of morality and if the morality in the West has always been determined from the perspective of past Injustices that motivate a radical desire for “pure” freedom, we discover that, in the broadest of possible views, this mentality of morality can only ever lead to constant destruction of the authority structures of mankind blamed for oppression (injurious use of authority), every revolution and abolition of an entity of authority nding its essence as another Exodus on the path towards “salvation,” a society where a authority is abolished. This is the precise distinction: the Zionist divergence purports the cycle by replacing the authority structure with the once oppressed group, a single Exodus (therefore begetting another future Exodus that will invert them), and the globalist divergence aims to destroy the entire cycle, a noble goal, through return/progress to the “beginning”: through the constant reoccurrence of Exodus: the constant destruction of authority itself so injustices cannot occur. But this then leads to the natural self-destruction of mankind, for the original inversion of Individualism inverted the wrong thing: it made authority in itself evil. Authority is a necessity for society, a necessity for the family, but its injurious use leads to natural divisions among people, fractures and revolutions: this is true among the Jews themselves, the most internally divided group of people to ever exist. The globalist mentality, the one that has abandoned God, believes that the only way to undo this is through the abolishment of authority in and of itself — complete and total equality — but its supporters do not realize that authority is a necessity for human interdependent existence: that without authority and inequality, there is no family. Jesus’ ful llment of the law, the completion of the Judaic project of undoing authority, is not the destruction of authority, but the inversion of what needed to be inverted: inversion of the Individualism of authority itself.

fi

fi

l

233

(Collectivism) “whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant; and whoever wants to be rst among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10: 43-45

Only though the message of Jesus, the inversion of the relationship between authority and service, is the injurious use of authority nulli ed, the cycle ended and the question of Modernity, the Jewish Question, solved. The purpose of authority is transferred from within man to outside of man, and he is Free. Hegel claims that all of history is the pursuit of the Idea, Freedom itself, and therefore, history begins and ends with Judaism: history begins and ends with Jesus. The Hebrews liberate themselves from the authority of Egyptians, but this liberation leads to the abstract belief that all authority is evil and that the Kingdom of God can be constructed: a place where all are equal, where there is no authority, where a are gods. Observe the modern world, where man has been made into his own “master,” his own god, the creator of “his own truth,” and it is self-evident how enslaved he is. The conclusion of the Judaic project is the end of all entities of authority that can cause injustice, but paradoxically, at the arrival of this goal, man is made into his own injustice, and thus, must Exodus om himself. The Last man is the man who is both his own master and slave. The last force of authority that can never be negated remains: the authority of the self. Directed by the “will” of the self, non-negated through reason, all his energies are directed towards the super uous pursuit of the self. In such a pursuit, he only makes himself into more of a slave: in acting on

fl

ll

ll

fi

fi

)

234

:

5

fr

Rather than serving the self (Individualism), a authority must be in service of others

his freedom, he becomes less ee. The more he obeys himself, the less ee he becomes, and if he seeks liberation, he can only nd it in nonexistence. Only through tyranny of the self does man become more ee, and this paradox extends upwards from the organism to the superorganism. When Franklin says only a virtuous people can be free, what is meant is that these people are only virtuous because they have already become their own tyrants. This is the lot of the modern and Last man. In rejecting all authority, all restriction and imposition, he nally attains the long sought after goal...but the path was backwards a this time. All around and within the modern world, man serves himself: the obese man who has become enslaved to his obesity, the lazy man who has become enslaved to his sloth, the greedy man who has become enslaved to his money, the sedated man who has become enslaved to his addictions, the “entertained” man who has become a slave to his distractions. All of these men, the lot of modernity, in being their own authority, are the greatest slaves. There is no hope of salvation for these people, for salvation can only be found in inverting themselves, and medication can only temporarily ease the oppressive forces of their slavery: their salvation is Exodus om themselves, om existence. To be truthful, the only things that make us more ee are things that in the moment make us less ee. Only when man is in service to something more valuable than himself is he free: in all other instances, he is a slave: he values himself over all things. True and pure freedom, the transient goal of modernity inherited from the very beginning, is impossible: only God is free and independent, eternally The Master. But God is the paradox that solves all paradoxes. Jesus serves as the deliverance of this misguided belief, the ful llment of the laws, the beginning and the end, the Messiah of all of mankind, the ending of the cycle of injustices and oppression, and the uni cation of mankind through the inversion of authority: rebirth. Jesus himself is the perfect political philosophy, the Universal. Judaism’s broad

fr

fi

fi

fr

fr

fr

ll

fi

fi

fr

fr

fr

235

goal of a harmonious society is only possible not through the inversion of Collectivism, but the inversion of authority: authority not in service of itself (Individualism), but in service of others(Collectivism). This inversion reverberates through all institutions and groups of humans as the antidote to not only liberal Individualism, but existence itself. Judaism is the beginning of the problem of political philosophy, the superorganistic quest to assimilate all into unity and harmony, and its solution is found in Jesus, the beginning and the end: the All-family and All-Nation as the Kingdom of God within man. The unifying force of society has never been the rainbow but the cross, and such is the message of rebirth. Baptism is the process of rebirth, and in the time of Noah, it can be said the entire world was, in being immersed in water, reborn. Modernity is a calamity such as the ood, and the end of times that has been prophesied has already arrived. Perhaps mankind must self-destruct in order to be reborn. Perhaps our baptism is nuclear.

fl

236

237




238

Epilogu Anti-Nihilis

m

e

239

1 Earlier, I posited that Nihilism could possibly be the revelatory punishment on man from God revealed by the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, but I believe a better way of putting it is that Nihilism is the synthesized punishment of both revelation and reason. The revelatory punishments are clear, and perhaps the punishments of rationality can be included in them, confusion, desolation, discouragement, blindness, etc, but to be speci c, the punishment of reason is the self-destruction of reason. It is the precise crisis that Strauss related “surely if such a culture loses its faith in reason’s ability to validate its highest aims, it is in a crisis. Rationality taken to its logical conclusion is Nihilism, the loss of faith in life, the inability to rationally declare that life is more valuable than death, and only through the synthesis between Athens and Jerusalem and the subsequent construction of modern Individualism does the disharmony of Nihilism begin to assail man. Why is it that Nihilism nds its origins in the work of Nietzsche, the man who revealed the truth of the “rationality” of the Enlightenment, who could intuitively hear this disharmony that has only gotten louder? Why is it only today that meaninglessness and Nihilism are so prevalent among modern populations? It is because Nihilism is only possible through Individualism: the logical conclusion of Individualism is Nihilism. Once the structure of society is inverted from the collective to the individual, the burden of meaning fa s onto the individual. The archaic man, the collectivist man, had no need to question his purpose. His purpose was/is clear at all times: the collective itself is his purpose, the community, state, family. His very identity was/is this purpose. The meaning that so many modern men believe they lack in life was clear for the archaic man, dei ed in the symbols, architecture, and life around and beside him. The

fi

:

fi

ll

fi

”

240

Yoke, and verily, a Yoke of his own choice. The individualistic man searches for meaning because the burden of meaning has been placed upon him, and in the modern world, he searches in vain. The collective from which he could nd his purpose is being destroyed, conditioned out of the minds of everyone in modernity, a self-corrective materially oriented system headed towards self-destruction, and the Gravity of Nihilism pushes down on him at all times: the modern man can do nothing but fa . How can the he construct something as monumentous as the collective that the archaic man found his purpose within? The modern man sees nothing but emptiness in all realms of life, an emptiness that re ects back at him in every mirror that catches his eye: the modern man is himself is empty: he is the Nihilist. What di erence does living or dying make to him? The occurrence of this precise thought, the equating of the value judgements of life and death, is the moment the covenant of Nihilism born from Individualism is ful lled, the moment it has reached consistency. The logical conclusion of Rationality onto Revelation is achieved. The disharmony is over. The Suicide of the Man follows the Suicide of the West. Silence Fa s over mankind..

Popper wrote that “The future depends on ourselves, and we do not depend on any historical necessity If man is revealed to be standing on nothing, his feet rmly planted on himself, selfdependent on all things, then will a plummet to the pit of the abyss not be the only thing that awaits him? Perhaps we have already fallen too far. Perhaps we can do nothing but curse ourselves for our concession to the gravity of rationalism as we hurtle towards suicide,

”

fl

.

fi

ll

l

fi

fi

:

ll

241

ff

2

co ectivist man could not and cannot be a nihilist. But for the individualistic man, Nihilism is his

y...but mankind was excommunicated from the realm of miracles long ago..

.

242

fl

fl

frantically ailing our limbs around in the hope that we might suddenly gain the ability to

man may raise us once more..

What is this Anti-Gravity? It is the answer provided in the previous chapters, the answer I hope I’ve brought you back to, to who you are. I used to believe that life was meant to be change. That in growing up, one changed as a result of the world, and although this is true, this is not all there is to it. You see, people tend to think the change is an end in and of itself, that it is the continuous process of the individual progressing in their individuality. I have come to believe something else. My favorite saying of Nietzsche, the one that resonated with the deepest inner chords of my being is “Become who you are! My perspective of such a saying has always been something contrary to the progressive change of the individual that contemporarily de nes it. In “becoming what one is,” one returns to who one once was: a path of necessity. The three metamorphoses of the Camel, Lion, and Child; verily life is a path of returning to your own beginning, the ending as the beginning. It is in this light I contend that Judaism is meant, the answer I believe Jesus Christ, the concluder of Judaism, imparts upon us: that the path of progress, that of redemption and return, is not external. It is not towards a Material Heaven on Earth, the Open society, or Salvation in the City of God, but rather, towards the inner Kingdom of God, the inner Spirit of God. The Kingdom of God is within man, and it is no constructed but returned to “The kingdom of God is not coming with a visible display. People won’t be saying, ‘Look! Here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ because now the kingdom of God is among you.” (Luke 17:20-21

:

:

fi

.

”

243

)

3

Or perhaps...there is a way out. Perhaps, there is an Anti-Gravity. That which has always raised

The Kingdom of God is among you, has always been among you. The quest for the bottommost turtle has always been an internal quest: all you have ever needed to do is return. Modern man was convinced by a material return to the Garden of Eden, to Heaven, an abolishment of all authority, but true return has always been spiritual return. The restoration and rebirth of mankind, is internal. “Repentance is return; redemption is restoration. A perfect beginning—the faithful city—is followed by defection, decline, sin; and this is followed by a perfect end. But the perfect end is the restoration of the perfect beginning: the faithful city at the beginning and at the end.” (Strauss) The faithful city of righteousness restored om within. Above all, what I hope this book has done is reframe your mind with such a perspective, a belief of inner return and redemption against “outer” and material return, possible within every human, and enabled you to embark on the path back to yourself. That is, it is my hope that this book has been able to do what it set out to do in the very beginning: lead you back to yourself. Certainly, that is what it has done for me. Both the Question of Modernity and the Answer is within all of us. Life is a pilgrimage back to oneself, a pilgrimage that we all eternally continue, and only with God does one walk the right path. Only with God does man reject Nihilism. This is what I call Anti-Nihilis



fr

m

244




245

246

Bibliograph American Abolitionists and Antislavery Activists. http://www.americanabolitionists.co

America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide. 29 Mar. 2021, https://pew.org/3bDV6Fa

“American Jewish World Service - AJWS.” American Jewish World Service – AJWS, https://ajws.org

Aristotle, and Benjamin Jowett. Politics. Dover Publications, 200

Benjamin, W., Zohn, H., & Arendt, H. (2019). Theses on the Philosophy of History. In I uminations: Essays and re ections. essay, Mariner Books, Houghton Mi in Harcourt

Bernays, Edward L., and Mark Crispin Miller. Propaganda. Ig Publishing, 200

Brown, Zachary. “Thomas Je erson, the American Revolution, and the Creation of a Republican World.” Journal of the American Revolution, 13 Sept. 2017, http://allthingsliberty.com/2017/09/thomas-je erson-american-revolution-creation-republican-world

Cahill, Thomas, and Thomas Cahill. The Gi s of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. 1st ed, Nan A. Talese, 199

Charlie Chaplin : The Final Speech om The Great Dictator. https://www.charliechaplin.com/en/articles/29-the- nal-speech-from-the-great-dictato

Chomsky, Noam, and Ilan Pappé. On Palestine. Edited by Frank Barat, Haymarket Books, 201

Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Zone Books, 199

“Dershowitz: Jews Shouldn’t Be Defending George Soros against Elon Musk.” The Jerusalem Post | JPost.Com, 6 June 2023, https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-745296

Dershowitz, Alan M. Rights om Wrongs. Basic Books, 200







/



fl

/

r

5

ll

.

m

5

ff

0

fi

4

4



.



ft

fr

ffl

ff

fr

y

8

247

Dershowitz, Alan M. The Genesis of Justice: Ten Stories of Biblical Injustice That Led to the Ten Commandments and Modern Law. Warner Books, 200

DeSilver, Drew. “The Polarization in Today’s Congress Has Roots That Go Back Decades.” Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades

“Equity Through Accuracy: Changes to Our Hate Map.” Southern Poverty Law Center https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/10/08/equity-through-accuracy-changes-our-hate-ma

“Ethnocracy.” Wikipedia, 8 Oct. 2023. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnocracy&oldid=117920507

Expulsions of Jews. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/expulsion

Feiler, Bruce. America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story. 1st ed, William Morrow, 200

Forbes, https://www.forbes.com

“Founders Online: From George Washington to Robert Morris, 12 April 1786. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-001

Founders Online: From John Adams to Wi iam Tudor, Jr., 20 November 1819. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-726

Frenkel, Sheera, and Kate Conger. “Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find.” The New York Times, 2 Dec. 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.htm

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press ; Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; Maxwell Macmillan International, 199

G20: “One Family, One Earth, One Future Most Needed...”, Says UN Secretary-General António. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBULyw_Sim

Green, Je , et al. “Corporate America Promised to Hire a Lot More People of Color. It Actually Did.” Bloomberg.Com, 25 Sept. 2023. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity





9

1

2



/

/

5



,

p

l



9

s

c

ll

/

0

ff

248

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems&oldid=117240480

Hay, Robert P. “George Washington: American Moses.” American Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 4, 1969, p. 780. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/271160

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, et al. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Edited by Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, 201

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, et al. Phenomenology of Spirit. Reprint., Oxford Univ. Press, 201

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, 200

Hölldobler, Bert, and Edward O. Wilson. The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. 1st ed, W.W. Norton, 200

Je erson, Thomas. To Major John Cartwrigt Monticello. 5 June 1824

Jews for a Secular Democracy, https://jfasd.org

Jewish Social Justice Roundtable, https://www.jewishsocialjustice.org

Johnson, Ronald W., and Joan MacDonnell. “The Relationship Between Conformity and Male and Female Attitudes toward Women.” The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 94, no.

1, Oct. 1974, pp. 155–56. DOI.org (Crossref)

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1974.992320

Josh. “Senseless Hatred – Cause and Cure.” World Mizrachi, 27 July 2022, https://mizrachi.org/hamizrachi/senseless-hatred-cause-and-cure

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason. 15th printing, Cambridge University Press, 200

Kesebir, Selin, The Superorganism Account of Human Sociality: How and When Human Groups are Like Beehives (September 26, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1933734 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.193373

9





/

2

2



2

4

3

,

9



.

.

0



/

9

249

ff



“Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems.” Wikipedia, 26 Aug. 2023. Wikipedia,

Klugman, Eliyahu Meir. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Architect of Torah Judaism for the Modern World. 3. ed., 1. impr, Mesorah Publications, 199

Kundera, Milan. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Faber and Faber, 199

Lee, Won W. “Exodus through the Centuries - By Scott M. Langston.” Religious Studies Review, vol. 33, no. 2, Sept. 2007, pp. 140–140. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0922.2007.00174_22.

Locke, John, and C. B. Macpherson. Second Treatise of Government. 1st ed, Hackett Pub. Co, 198

Marcus, Yosef, editor. [Pir e Avot] =: Pirkei Avot = Ethics of the Fathers: With a New Commentary Anthologized from the Works of the Classic Commentators and the Chasidic Masters. Merkos L’inyonei Chinuch, 200

Musk, Elon, @ElonMusk, X.co

Nietzsche, F., Hollingdale, R. J., Kaufmann, W. A., & Nietzsche, F. (1968a). The Wi to Power. Weidenfeld and Nicolso

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, et al. The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, 199

“Noam Chomsky: Israel’s Actions in Palestine Are ‘Much Worse Than Apartheid’ in South Africa.” Democracy Now!, http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/8/8/noam_chomsky_what_israel_is_doin

“Norman Yoke.” Wikipedia, 19 Sept. 2023. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_yoke&oldid=117604798

NW, 1615 L. St, et al. “First- and Second-Generation Share of the Population, 1900-2017.” Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/chart/ rst-and-second-generation-share-of-the-population

O’Hear, Anthony, editor. Karl Popper: Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers. Routledge, 200

“Only a Virtuous People Are Capable of Freedom.” National Center for Constitutional Studies, https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/only-a-virtuous-people-are-capable-of-freedo









6

n



9

/

0

4



5

g

m

ll

x

9

fi

m

ḳ

8

250

Open Society Foundations—Who We Are. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are

Ordericus, and Marjorie Chibnall. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. Vol. 1: General Introduction. Books I and II (Summary and Extracts). Index Verborum / Ed. by Marjorie Chibnall. Reprinted, vol. 1, Clarendon Press, 200

Orwell, George, and George Packer. Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays. 1st Mariner Books ed, Mariner Books, 200

Paine, Thomas. Rights of Man. Penguin Books, 1984

Paine, Thomas, and Isaac Kramnick. Common Sense. Reprint, Penguin Books, 198

Philadelphia, Mailing Address: 143 S. 3rd Street, and PA 19106 Phone: 215-965-2305 Contact Us. The Liberty Be - Independence National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service). https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/stories-libertybell.ht

Pine, Leslie. Sons of the Conqueror; Descendants of Norman Ancestry. Charles E. Tuttle Company; First Edition, 1973

Plato, and C. D. C. Reeve. Republic. Hackett Pub. Co, 200

Popper, Karl R., et al. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton University Press, 201

Putnam, R.D. (2007), E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty- rst Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30:137-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.

“Religion in Israel.” Wikipedia, 11 Sept. 2023. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Israel&oldid=1174891322

“Remarks Delivered at the 2022 World Economic Forum in Davos.” George Soros, https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/05/24/remarks-delivered-at-the-2022-world-economic-forum-in-davos

Repair the world, https://werepair.org

Ron Unz: Controversial Writer and Funder of Anti-Israel Activists | ADL. https://www.adl.org/resources/news/ron-unz-controversial-writer-and-funder-anti-israel-activists



.





9

.

m

/

ll

.

x

3

3

6

fi





4

.

251

Ronald W. Johnson & Joan MacDonnell (1974) The Relationship Between Conformity and Male and Female Attitudes toward Women, The Journal of Social Psychology, 94:1, 155-156, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1974.992320

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and G. D. H. Cole. On the Social Contract. Dover Publications, 200

Sailer, Steve. “Fragmented Future.” The American Conservative, 15 Jan. 2007, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/fragmented-future

“Secular Zionism.” My Jewish Learning, https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/secular-zionism

Schütte, Wolfgang. “Miṣwah Oder Tôrah ? Ben Sira Und Das Au ommen Der Torah Im 2. Jh. v.Chr.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 33–58. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2021.190930

Shahak, Israël. Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. New ed, Pluto, 200

“Society for Humanistic Judaism.” Society for Humanistic Judaism, https://shj.org/

Sombart, Werner. The Jews and Modern Capitalism . Martino Fine Books, 2015

Soros, George. In Defense of Open Society. First edition, PublicA airs, 201

“Soros Gets Boos for Using YIVO Stage as Political Platform.” The Forward, 6 June 2003, https://forward.com/news/8977/soros-gets-boos-for-using-yivo-stage-as-political

“Southern Poverty Law Center.” Wikipedia, 31 Aug. 2023. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=1173180196

Spengler, Oswald, et al. The Decline of the West. Oxford University Press, 1991

Strauss, Leo, and Kenneth Hart Green. Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought. State University of New York Press, 199

/





7

8

0

.

/

3



/

.

.

.

9



fk

ff

7

252

That Claim That Harvard Admissions Discriminate in Favor of Jews? A er Seeing the Statistics, I Don’t See It. | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2013/02/12

“The Bible as Hate Speech?” Religious Freedom Institute, 1 Apr. 2022, https://religiousfreedominstitute.org/the-bible-as-hate-speech

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-declaration-of-the-establishment-of-the-state-of-israe

The World Is Broken, So Humans Must Repair It: The History and Evolution of Tikkun Olam https://www.brandeis.edu/jewish-experience/history-culture/2023/may/tikkun-olam-history.htm

“Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO.” George Soros, https://www.georgesoros.com/1993/11/01/toward-a-new-world-order-the-future-of-nato

Twitter Had ‘Secret Blacklists’ to Limit Users, Journalist Claims https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/12/9/twitter-had-secret-blacklists-to-limit-users-journalist-claims

“United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379.” Wikipedia, 23 June 2023. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379&oldid=1161519928

“United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19.” Wikipedia, 27 July 2023. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_ES-10/19&oldid=116735971

Unz, Ron. “The Myth of American Meritocracy.” The Unz Review, 28 Nov. 2012

Unz, Ron. Unz on Meritocracy: Response to Prof. Gelman on Jewish Elite Overrepresentation | Ron Unz – Writings and Perspectives. http://www.ronunz.org/2013/02/13/unz-on-meritocracy-response-to-prof-gelman-on-jewish-elite-overrepresentation

Vindicating the Founders: Document Library: Five Founders on Slavery. https://vindicatingthefounders.com/library/ ve-founders-on-slavery.htm

Voegelin, Eric, et al. The Co ected Works of Eric Voegelin. Louisiana State University Press, 198

l





/

5

.

/

.

fi

l

l

/



9



.

.

/

ft



.



ll

253

Walzer, Michael. Exodus and Revolution. Nachdr., Basic Books, 199

War, Phillip S. Greenwalt Phill Greenwalt is co-founder of Emerging Revolutionary, et al.“Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.” American Battle eld Trust, 1 May 2020, https://www.battle elds.org/learn/articles/common-sens

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge, 2001

Weinstein, D., & Zakai, A. (2017). Bibliography. In Jewish Exiles and European Thought in the Shadow of the Third Reich: Baron, Popper, Strauss, Auerbach (pp. 273-295). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316711064.00

“When the Founders Looked to Moses.” The Christian Century, https://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2015-03/when-founders-looked-moses

“White Ethnostate.” Wikipedia, 6 Oct. 2023. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_ethnostate&oldid=1178893711

“Wilson, D. S. &, Wilson, E. O. (2007), The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 327-348 Zakai, Avihu, and David Weinstein, editors. “Karl Popper: ‘Critical Interpretation’ as Fighting Fascism.” Jewish Exiles and European Thought in the Shadow of the Third Reich:Baron, Popper, Strauss, Auerbach, Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 71–130. Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711064.004





.







8

.

e

.

8



fi

fi

254