12th October

Yesterday I finished the day almost lost at sea. On a good day, I would classify the conspiracy theories levelled against the Jews as almost childish.

No longer can I postpone the acceptance of the historical fact that Marxism was interpreted into a Jewish context by these people.

Ukraine’s nationalistic desires was boosted by CIA projects. Does that mean that Ukraine’s desire to break away from Russia is a blind result of foreign influence?

It isn’t an unanswered question. It is an unanswerable question.

The seeds were there already. Someone just watered them. It was a good strategy, but was it only a strategy? An evil plan by a shadowy organisation (CIA), not only to gain world control, but to have their philosophy of life dominate everywhere?

Viewing Jews as non-humans who are unable to control their urge to produce theories that spreads like a virus and subdues the nations intellectually is a close parallel to the idea that CIA or KGB does something similar.

“But what if it really is like that?”

Perfect question, but I am not so inclined by nature that thinking like that sits well with me.

If you want to refute Marx, read Marx.

This should be elevated into a principle: Always and only address the words of the authors one is attacking. System views are of immense value, but never try to confound the two.

Jews in history act on their own. Sometimes we have evidence of their internal thought processes, sometimes we cannot even speculate.

People getting abortions have personal motives. They are present in statistical trends, but they don’t have “abortionist blood” in their veins.

Employees of CIA and KGB may have ideological (or even religious) views, but they are not brainwashed drones acting only on orders. If you have a problem with them, attack the ideological base that makes them accept that obeying orders leads to results (perhaps even without too many unwanted side effects).

And don’t call liberalism or socialism “Jewish” science. Their adherents tend to react unfriendly to pure dismissal.

13th October

What is oppression?

Is abortion oppression of non-existing future generations?

Is killing an idea by helping another to the fore, and thus starving the remaining from their potential place, oppression?

What about physical violence? Even that case is hazy. Everyday police actions are not oppression, we seem to think, as a majority agrees with their necessity.

If we measure by desperation, all of the above could at some level count as oppression.

For all of the above there will be at least one person somewhere, who cringes in agony over the life or opportunity lost.

“Oppression” is a political word. A wilful picking out and labelling of one particular use of force out of an ocean of forces spent on controlling the human development.

14th October

One thing that gets under my skin: When I read Theodor Herzl, I may sometimes be surprised at how he differed from what I expected, but I always feel able to see the human in him. I may disagree with his motives, but he appears easy to read.

Then why can’t I find even a shred of awareness of shared humanity in the anti-semitic literature? They have read Jewish literature, at least to the point where they can quote from AJS.

Herzl died aged 44 in 1904 of a cardiac sclerosis. He never witnessed the turmoil and mass killings of Jews which were to come later.

Had he not died in 1904, he would have died of a broken heart when he were bound to realise that rather than solving their Jewish problem by sending them into welcoming arms in Palestine, Das Reich decided to solve the problem internally.

Why? I have yet to find out. I suspect the work inside the work camps was part of the “balancing” of the scales. If the rumour about Jews maintained they were unable to perform physical work, the pieces fit: Punishment for profiting on hard working Germans. Something of a similar nature arose in Bolshevik Russia with millions of kulaks deported to work camps and re-education.

Herzl had high hopes:

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.40 - BENEFITS OF THE IMMIGRATION OF THE JEWS

A great period of prosperity would commence in countries which are now Anti-Semitic.

p.6 - INTRODUCTION

The departure of the Jews will involve no economic disturbances, no crises, no persecutions; in fact, the countries they abandon will revive to a new period of prosperity.

These are just a few examples of how he thinks a migration of Jews would completely flip the sign on gentile-Jewish relations in the countries migrated out of.

15th October

TIJ - Ch. 3 - Jewish History In The United States

● Jews funded Columbus’ journey (and tried to hide it). ● Jews invented 2nd hand clothing and waste management when barred from other trades. ● Hide companies behind gentile names. ● Jewish business style. ● Avoids assimilation.

.

Yes, Isabella funding the voyage with her crown jewels is apocryphal. No, it does not mean that Jews try to suppress the real story.

Repeatedly this simplistic pattern is applied. How the actions of three people could be connected to all the poor Jews in the world may astound, but in this same chapter, he explains it. I will get back to the dynamics between the poor and the rich Jews later.

Luis de Torres, and other members of the crew who stayed behind in the La Navidad settlement were dead when Columbus returned a year later in 1493.

So much for founding the tobacco industry.

But I like TIJ’s phrasing right out of the bible about de Torres who became “the father of”. See this is how it works. Wherever Jews arrive, they become founders of tribes of specific trades. Some in tobacco, som in waste recycling, some may pick up refrigeration systems.

Up to a maximum of 12 trades per epoch. And the founders will be brothers.

A quip on motives

But what is left out is the very understandable fact that Jews had an urge to migrate as their life in Spain and Portugal were limited: Convert to Christianity or be executed.

Who knows what could await at the other end of the ocean. A freer life? If a bridgehead could be established, then soon Jews could follow. Perhaps.

The eternal dispute in the era of sociology (but probably as old as crowded man himself) is over the question “can our own accounts of our motives be trusted?”, which is often met with a negative answer and the target group is put into a context where other narratives of their reasons come to the foreground.

My current attitude is that the question is so deeply entangled with our ancient DNA and our reflex-produced aggressions that it makes little sense to discern the scientist postulating a social law from the world of social laws.

We feel the encroaching tribe and speculate whether they want our food stock or butcher us.

That does not imply that systemic changes aren’t taking place. But the difficulty of answering the question of what else would have happened if something else had happened renders the point moot.

TIJ says that Spain began to decline when the Jews were expelled in 1492 by Ferdinand II and Isabelle I in the Alhambra Decree.

Let us assume that the decline actually began in 1492 and not in the 17th century (Spain was still a great hegemon a hundred years after the Decree). Establishing a causal connection takes a little bit more than a suspicion.

And yet, I have to be honest. While the argument is worthless, can I honestly deny feeling just a little bit of doubt? Had I been a peasant and tool maker in the late 1400s, already economically pressed, how would I have reacted to the presence of numerous Jews in my little community? Let’s assume that the rumour was the same as in TIJ: Jews can and will master any trade they throw themselves into. If not out of pure (divine?) ability, then because they (cheat and) band together with their kin and provide capital ready to invest in building up a competing business.

How many incidents where I had lost income over the increased competition would it take before my anger flamed, say if some of them were merchants who imported some of the goods I tried to sell on the markets.

As Theodor Herzl laments:

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.2 - INTRODUCTION

In vain are we loyal patriots, our loyalty in some places running to extremes; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to increase the fame of our native land in science and art, or her wealth by trade and commerce.

The moral of the story is of course that unless we take an extra effort to see a friend in our neighbours, we will soon see an enemy. A good start is to learn their language and read their literature.

Marxism is a systemic view on society. So are many other ideologies. Does that mean they are dangerous? Is sociology dangerous? Well, obviously if we burn people at the stake over a thesis depicting them as dangerous to society, say by being predatory males. But what about the lesser crimes?

Thinking is a mortal sin that we probably will just have to bear on our shoulders and suffer the consequences for. A bit of humility could have solved many historical problems, I will nevertheless contend.

Benefit of the doubt?

I am not saying the nazis of the world should have the benefit of the doubt.

But I am saying that unless we try wholeheartedly to become nazis ourselves, we will end up exerting the same forces in our present day as they did – for reasons that looks decidedly different from our idea of nazi ideology.

In reality, we witness a shoddy rationalisation of an inimical attitude towards bankers and capitalist speculation. Inherent in that attitude is the appraisal of progressive approach to innovation and productivity.

However insane it sounds to us, they fused socialism and capitalism together, created a view that somewhere in the world there are some sick individuals who will use alluring theory (Marxism) to destroy a well-functioning laissez-faire capitalist society to soften the tendons that orders society in a way that is not compatible with their inner nature, which is “the spur to mastery” through speculative finance. (I am guessing, as the authors spend very little time integrating the two incompatible entities).

I don’t need their rationalisation, weak as it is. I need their primal motivation.

This is human nature at play.

Had Ford’s son or one of his grandchildren created a business out of the above, it would have been sound innovation. But when a Jew is suspected of doing it (fictional as it probably is), it proves their low character. Dealing in waste and spent clothing instead of fixing the world’s problem through good business management and scientific evolution.

The only mechanism at play I see is allowing a common dislike that grows into a monster by being coalesced with other dislikes and projected on a “character type”.

Poor Jews and rich Jews and business style

We are to believe that the Jew is responsible for the suffering of poor Jews.

When he starts the explanation with saying that no black people are persecuted in 1920, I am not inclined to research too much for the rest. But to him it is probably real.

These are not explanations. These are weak explanations. They same little about “patriarchal white man”, but a lot about overeager zealots.

“Individually excellent but socially harmful” …?

A rather special way of stating that when absolutely most wealthy exploiters during the early Industrial Revolution were just as reluctant to introduce new inventions (until others had taken the risk and ironed out the kinks), they too were socially harmful.

(If one thinks that innovation constantly improved living standards within weeks during the Industrial Revolution, one needs to revisit history.)

Compare with AJS …

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.10 - EFFECTS OF ANTI-SEMITISM

Thus, whether we like it or not, we are now, and shall henceforth remain, a historic group with unmistakable characteristics common to us all.

We are one people — our enemies have made us one in our despite, as repeatedly happens in history. Distress binds us together, and, thus united, we suddenly discover our strength. Yes, we are strong enongh to form a State, and a model State. We possess all human and material resources necessary for the purpose.

Herzl partly agrees.

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, COMMERCE

As soon as one of them has daily bread and a roof over his head, he sends for his people; for family ties are strong among us.

But he disagrees sharply with the claim that Jews are unable to work with his hands, as I have observed earlier.

THEODOR HERZL - THE SEVEN-HOURS DAY

For our men will crowd to work in the new country, and the world will see then what stuff for work is in us.

THEODOR HERZL - RESPONSIBLE MEN OF THE LOCAL GROUPS

Whoever shows a genuine desire to work will be suitably employed. Beggars will not be endured. Whoever refused to do anything as a free man will be sent to the workhouse.

And so on. Many times Herzl reminds that:

We are what the Ghetto made us. We have doubtless attained preeminence in finance, because medieval conditions drove us to it. The same process is now being repeated. Modern conditions force us again into finance, now the stock-exchange, by keeping us out of all other branches of industry.

They are pretty much eye to eye, except TIJ believes Jews live out a secret desire when they do what they do, and Herzl reminds us that they were forced to be where they were.

But do compare with TIJ about the Ghetto:

Which is a nice gesture… The Jews sought to be in Ghettos. They were not isolated to them. There is something really wrong with them! Wanting their own destruction like that.

16th October

The righteous wrath.

I am missing the dangerous, volatile part of racism. The righteous wrath that flares and commits atrocities. All this is just clever explanation.

PARADISE LOST