Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism by Douglas Rushkoff Book Review

Nothing+Sacred

I had known about Rushkoff’s treatment of Judaism; Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism, for some time and had always meant to read and review it.[i]

A video of Rushkoff discussing his take on Judaism surfaced online reminiscent of the infamous ‘Barbara Spectre moment’ – that is a political gaffe from the tribe’s mouth. We can say these “Spectre moments” are when a Jewish cultural distorter candidly discusses Jewish cultural distortion on non-Jews and their nations as Rushkoff does:

“The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true, we don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state, we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force, we’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real and that’s very upsetting to people.”

The reason Jews like Rushkoff and Barbara Spectre allow themselves to speak candidly about Jewish social engineering, affirming what their ‘detractors’ accuse Jews of is because they believe that by manipulating gentile societies they are doing the world a service – that they are in fact doing God’s work. By undermining their host nations so as to bring about conditions of disunity, Jews, like Rushkoff and Spectre, believe that in performing this role of ‘a corrosive force;’ “breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people,” that they are performing a mitzvah as part of their god-ordained task of tikkun olam. A mitzvah is translated as a ‘commandment’ but more commonly means a good deed done from religious duty. Rushkoff describes tikkun olam as “a poetic way of expressing the responsibility Jews have to ‘heal the earth.’[ii] In my two part essay on integration Manspreading for Lebestrum, when I discuss the HBO series Show me a Hero, based on a book by Jewish New York Times writer Lisa Belkin about the integration struggle in Yonkers between the NAACP their Jewish lawyers and the ethnic whites of Yonkers, we can discern the same underlying self-justification:

 

“Belkin seeks to frame the issue of integration in terms of a progressive Jewish solution to the Jewish problem, while fully retaining her Jewishness. When asked about the overtly Jewish role in integration, Belkin neither denies nor downplays the Jewish role. Instead she invokes the Jewish religious principle of Tiklun Olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning ‘repairing the world.’ Tiklun Olam, was described by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in terms of a Kehilla (community) of Jews in galut (diaspora) successfully influencing their non-Jewish neighbors.”[iii]

Douglas-Rushkoff-306-306
We’re destroying your culture for your own good, trust us.

What Jews like Rushkoff, Specter and Belkin affirm is that what “anti-semites” claim; that Jewish manipulation is real and corrosive is true; they agree the “Jewish conspiracy” is real but it is a matter of interpretation and the “anti-semite” is simply a gentile with the wrong interpretation simply because Jews know better. “The Jews unique position as perpetual outsiders led them to adopt and promote a wide range of cosmopolitan and inclusive business strategies and ethical standards.”[iv] Thus, diaspora Jews living in host nations seeking to ‘influence’ their non-Jewish neighbors in a manner which is demonstrably detrimental to their hosts (by mudding the authentic bonds of organic society; Tonnies’ Total Gesellschaft) and beneficial to Jews, as Rushkoff acknowledges, “A fluid society with ever-changing boundaries served them better than a closed or static one in which outsiders and new ideas were feared,”[v] is interpreted by Jews as a gift or a service they are rendering onto their Gentile neighbours.

 

Rushkoff and Belkin make Jewish social engineering into a fundamental religious precept inherent in Judaism rather and sometimes partially acknowledged as a diaspora social-political strategy to weaken the host; “It is not only our tradition, but our explicit obligation to act as stewards for the greater society.”[vi] To this end Rushkoff discusses the widely known Jewish role in desegregation and integration; “In 1952, the American Jewish Congress worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) to target unfair housing policy. Through a series of legal battles, American Jewish Congress attorneys ended the whites-only policy of New York City’s Stuyvesant Town, setting an important legal precedent against discrimination in housing projects that received any amount of public aid.”[vii]

karl-popper-tolerance-300x169.jpg
You wonder where Antifa gets it from?

What is interesting is that Rushkoff subtly acknowledges the self-serving and contingent strategic basis of such practices, something Karl Popper, the Jewish philosopher of the ‘Open Society,’ never could. Popper in his The Open Society and its Enemies, expressed the same desires for a universalist, cosmopolitan, pluralist, liberal society yet Popper rightly concluded that these values were largely the opposite of the Jewish religion, which according to Popper,[viii] and most all scholars of comparative religions i.e. Hegel, is a tribal supremacist ‘closed society,’ whereas Rushkoff through his deconstructionist self-serving modern revisionist interpretation  Judaism proper becomes the wellspring from which ‘open society’ values spring. While Popper denied the very Jewish strategic basis of his viewpoint, conservative Jew Malachi Haim Hacohen, who is a foremost Popper scholar and critic, points towards Popper’s assimilated Ashkenazi Jewishness as the main source of his political viewpoint: “Cosmopolitanism appealed to Popper and liberal Jews precisely because of their life in between cultures and their indeterminate identity. Claiming membership in an imagined cosmopolitan community, Popper rejected Jewish identity. “I do not consider myself ‘an assimilated German Jew,’” he told a critic of his Autobiography, “this is how ‘the Fuhrer would have considered me.”[ix]

Enlightenment philosophers often portrayed the Jew as the counter-universal, especially Voltaire.[x] Popper refused to see the Jewish basis for his commitment to Kant’s cosmopolitanism, instead he would have sided with Marx and declared, “the question is not the emancipation of the Jews, but, rather, emancipation from the Jews… The emancipation of the Jews . . . is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism.” In so far as Popper admonished Judaism as a tribalist cult of the ‘closed society,’ Rushkoff seeks to re-interpret and thus salvage Judaism by imagining that the social engineering that Jews have been engaged in during modernity is actually the philosophical and moral foundations of Judaism itself. But because Jews are able to successfully carry out radical changes in gentile society because of their internal cohesion; their sense of mission as Jews, the changes they bring about are specifically designed to fragment the internal cohesion, the sense of ‘we’ of their hosts. The very success of the Jews working as groups of Jews undermines their stated purpose towards tolerance and plurality as inherently beneficial. Thus, the changes they established in immigration, desegregation, and integration can only be viewed as acts of subversion.

The problem herein is that Jewish tribalism and secular universalism are antithetical, and hence the assimilated Jew, especially if they are conscious of maintaining their Jewishness, is involved in a kind of fraud and deception. Rushkoff in the face of all prevailing evidence, of which he himself acknowledges, “True enough, my entire premise is contradicted by the many ways our own myths and customs have always been profoundly steeped in racial and ethnic assumptions. There are as many warnings in the Torah to kill our tribal neighbors as there are encouragements to embrace them. A good number of our most observant members ground their faith and pride in the Torah’s plentiful admonitions not to mix with other, lesser people[xi] attempts to transform Judaism into a ‘social justice’ religion. Rushkoff explains the Jewish strategy; “Anti-semites are not entirely unfounded in their claim that Jews are behind a great media conspiracy… If there is an agenda underlying Jews’ dedication to expanding the role of media in people’s lives, it is to promote intellectual perspective and the value of pluralism.”[xii] ‘Intellectual perspective’ herein is a lighter euphemism for the values and perspectives of the Jews. “Media, then, at its best, is a form of mass education” meaning brainwashing. “The more interconnected a society, the more likely it was to engage in complex transactions requiring Jews’ service. And the more inclusive and tolerant a society, the more likely it was to include the Jews, too.” Is this not ‘diversity is good because it is good for the Jews?[xiii]

 

[i] It was some years ago that I first encountered Jewish author Douglas Rushkoff. I read his Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take it Back. This was a part of a resurgence of far-left anti-corporatism, such as Jewish author Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and the film The Corporation (2003) by Jewish-Canadian filmmaker Mark Achbar. Having never abandoned a belief in socialist leanings and the negative effects of unbridled capitalism there was something to glean out of these student day forays of mine.

I recall even now that the central problem with Rushkoff’s book was the superficial quality of it; he attempted to fill pages buttressing his specious arguments with name-dropping and platitudes instead of real critical analysis to give the book the illusion of weight rather than internal cohesion. It had the same kind of swindling fraudulent quality as Jonah Lehrer’s work.

[ii] ” Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 36.

 

[iii] “Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 1 and 2 – Alex Fontana.” 30 Sep. 2017, https://alexfontana.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/manspreading-for-lebensraum-part-1-and-2/. Accessed 28 Feb. 2018.

[iv] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 06.

 

[v] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 07.

[vi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 04.

[vii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 41.

 

[viii] “Hearing as a young boy the biblical story of the Golden Calf, said Popper, he had recognized the roots of religious intolerance in Jewish monotheism. The Hebrew Bible was the fountainhead of tribal nationalism. Oppressed and persecuted, exilic Jews created the doctrine of the Chosen People, presaging modern visions of chosen class and race. Both Roman imperialism and early Christian humanitarianism threatened the Jews’ tribal exclusivism. Jewish orthodoxy reacted by reinforcing tribal bonds, shutting Jews off from the world for two millennia. The ghetto was the ultimate closed society, a “petrified form of Jewish tribalism.” 120 Its inhabitants lived in misery, ignorance, and superstition. Their separate existence evoked the suspicion and hatred of non-Jews and fueled antisemitism.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History, 71(1), 105-149.

[ix] “The ambiguity of Austrian nationality gave Jews an opportunity missing elsewhere for negotiating Jewish and national identity. Jews were the only ethnic group to adopt enthusiastically the official Staatsgedanke.

The politics of Jewish identity was notoriously contentious, but poor Galician traditionalists and re-fined Viennese assimilationists, orthodox rabbis and liberal scholars, Zionists and socialists, all declared their loyalty to the dynasty and the supranational empire. “Jews are the standard-bearers of the Austrian idea of unity,” stated the liberal Viennese rabbi Adolf Jellinek.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History, 71(1), 105-149.

[x] Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243.}

[xi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 176.

[xii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print.  8.

[xiii] If real unity comes from a shared sense of ‘we’ that is internal cohesion,Prior to the changes wrought about by special interests groups in the Anglosphere’s immigration policies (1965 US, 1967 Canada, 1972 Australia) collectively neologized as “globalized integration strategy,” (GIS) immigration was dictated in terms of racial-cultural preference. As such the idea of the melting pot was one based on shared culture, race and civilizational bloc. The idea was to create a melted European-American. As such the bio-politics of Europe have been left behind in favor of what I have elsewhere called “elective affinities.” Elective Affinities denote the linear and interconnected tradition of Western Civilization and peoples – we feel ourselves to be a part of European Civilization. As such the crude biological determinism of Nordic supremacy has betrayed the more rational argument of in-group preference ‘a shared sense of we’ as Charles Maurras put it “Jews threatened the integral nation not by their blood but by their own nonlinear history and alternative tradition, by the disruption to integral form their presence within the nation provoked in the nation-work. The Jew is the ultimate figure of the non-Greek or anti-Greek (and thus the non-French or anti-French…”) See:

Carroll, David. French literary fascism : nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the ideology of culture. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1995. Print. 88.

Maurras is essentially holding the same views held by Voltaire, “The nucleus of Voltaire’s view of the Jews, however, amounts to this: there is a cultural, philosophical, and ethnic tradition of Europe which descended, through the human stock of that continent, from the intellectual values that were taught by the Greeks. Those were in turn carried to all the reaches of the European world by the Romans. This is the normative culture of which Voltaire approved. The Jews are a different family, and their religion is rooted in their character.” See: Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243. It is now only with Rushkoff does the Jew have his cake and gets eat it to.

A Tale of Two Islands: Castaway (1986) and Swept Away (1974)

“Flirtatiousness is fundamental to a woman’s nature, but not all put it into practice because some are restrained by fear or by good sense.” – La Rouchefoucauld

The ‘desert island’ film Castaway (1986), directed by Nicolas Roeg and starring a dipsomaniacal Oliver Reed and a hot young “Ms. Robinson”; Amanda Donohoe, is based on the memoirs of Lucy Irvine. Irvine had responded to an advert placed by writer Gerald Kingsland seeking a mate for a ‘survivor experiment’ to last the duration of a year on a desert island. I was reminded of another film with the same theme of a man and a woman alone together on an island; Swept Away (1974) (Italian: Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto The full English title is Swept Away… by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August), directed by Lina Wertmuller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato.

article-0-0A909F70000005DC-135_468x613.jpg
Donohoe and Reed

Both films are really truly vehicles about the sexes and not really about the individuals themselves who in their isolated environments lose track of ‘who they are’ – Donohoe asks Reed in one scene “who am I?” having lost contact with the world in which their identities were built and reflected back to them by their relationships with other people and their social roles. While in Swept Away, the prior identities of the two characters function also as a Marxist critique of capitalist society; Melato as Raffaella the high society capitalist snob and Giannini as Gennarino the proletariat deckhand who works on her yacht despising her, but these political identities are also washed away on the island isolation and also in their physical union with each other. Without the contingencies that ground social identities individuals just become the primordial man and the primordial woman, the necessities of survival account for time spent in cultural and individual attributions.

As Castaway was based on real occurrences in which both participants wrote accounts, the subjects abilities to transcend their identities were limited – that is knowing they were involved in a sort of publicity stunt their behaviors were somewhat kept in line by the knowledge of a mutual Hawthorne effect and the limitations of the experiment. Now of the two Swept Away is the more radical endeavor because it is a work of pure fantasy and the relationship between the sexes is to be read as one of Weberian Ideal Types. There is no expectation for the conditions of their isolation to end they are truly free to lose the vestiges of their social conditioning and return to the primordial garden. Roger Ebert wrote that the film “resists the director’s most determined attempts to make it a fable about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and persists in being about a man and a woman. On that level, it’s a great success.” I agree with Ebert who mentions that the film is a “kinky” updated variation on the desert island theme of films like Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) in which a nun and a US solider become trapped on together.

MV5BOTE5NzkzYWUtOWM2My00Nzc0LTg2MmQtM2Y5YzMyY2EwMjZiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUxODE0MDY@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1268,1000_AL_.jpgThe same sexual tensions run through all three ‘scenario’ films but with varying results; in the earliest incarnation Heaven Knows; God, chastity and honour win out. In Swept Away, vital “toxic” masculinity wins. in Castaway it is womanly manipulation triumphant. Now it would be interesting to account for these differences in a comparative treatment. While Heaven Knows certainly reflects the time period in which the Hollywood production code was being enforced and the relative constrained morality of 1950s America, which make it easy to write off as a kind of tamed examination of the ‘Adam and Eve scenario.’ While Swept Away, being a product of the 1970s, European and directed by a woman may help explain its overt patriarchal message, Ebert again:

“that woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male… The more the woman submits, the more ecstasy she finds – until finally she’s offending the hapless Sicilian by suggesting practices he can’t even pronounce.”

The violent culmination is a sadistic sodomy rape that makes the woman the man’s bitch. Wertmuller’s handling of the subject invokes the bestial remnants of centuries of non-consensual sex; when men got women as a prize for victory over a vanished tribe or foe – the film is a misogynistic rape-fantasy and is regarded by feminists and liberals as an abomination. In sharp contrast, in Castaway, Donohoe’s character Lucy refuses to ‘put out,’ and although starving for sexual communion, Reed’s Gerald acquiesces to her sudden frigidity, feigning indignation, again this is tempered by the circumstances; based on real events, an experiment meant to last a year, being the subject of one another’s published chronicles, but  also they are visited multiple times by other groups of people who help them survive (not truly deserted!) – Gerald then in some sense couldn’t just rape her. The transgressions were mitigated. Therefore, this American 1980s turn towards a kind of Lysistrata revolt cannot be said to be without contingent factors within the text itself – (Lucy implies it is because Gerald is not working hard enough at some point, but often uses muddled reasoning). The twelve year period between the two films cannot be said to constitute different epochs of feminism, both being within the confines of the so-called ‘second wave,’ although Castaway seemed to embody the radical feminism of the later period of Andrea Dworkin who argued famously in her 1987 Book Intercourse that “all heterosexual sex is rape.” However, the real account of difference must be one in which the ‘Real scenario’ of Ideal Types is allowed to play out because it is less contingent on mediating factors and the one in which the ‘System’ of mediation cannot interfere to ensure some sense of civil propriety is maintained. Perhaps Dworkin was partially correct, in so far as the primordial sexual communion may well be the forced rape of the female – Lilith be damned.

Now the idea of man and woman alone on an island may also be looked at metaphorically. The monogamous relationship and the globe of psychic, emotional and physical bond between lovers can create a kind of separation between their love and the rest of the world – the idea that love is an island. Curiously in the three films after the ‘island adventure’ all three couples relate their love for one another but ultimately go their separate ways – this is always due to the woman’s decision. Here the ‘island of love’ is revealed to be merely another kind of illusion dependent on contingent circumstances, like that of their identities – Lucy’s “who am I?” and Raffaella and Gennarino’s “class.” Of the three women the only one who remains true throughout is the nun because of her love for God (which should be read as kind of refusal to play the game or her inability to be true to her human nature), the lesson of the other two ‘islands,’ whether radical feminist or patriarchal misogynistic, both agree on one thing; the precariousness of woman – she is an evil thing. Evola, Weininger and the whole of Patriarchal Traditionalism agree that woman is by nature chthonic, devious and ultimately heartless – incapable of spiritual ascent and great works – she is too readily conditioned by exterior contingencies. Recall that when Zeus decided to give humanity a punishing gift Hephaestus molds from the earth the first woman, whom Hesiod calls a “beautiful evil thing” whose descendants would go forth to torment the human race. The lesson with woman then is to sodomize her while you can.

p60291-620x350.jpg
“fucking cunt”

Jordan Peterson part 2: JP On Hitler and The JQ

Just a couple of days after I published my blog post criticizing Jordan Peterson’s individual reductionist approach to the social problems alienating and detracting from the life expectations of European men, his professional discipline, for his hypocrisy in regards to free speech, and for superficial and vague dodging of the JQ Peterson gets called out by a Jew about the JQ. Times like these it seems Reality herself literally follows my blog. The story was brought to my attention via the Daily Stormer’s write up.

 

Years ago I read what was available online of Solzhenityn’s 200 Years Together, the book is mentioned and given to Peterson as a gift in the above clip. The book is about the history of the Jews in Russia – and there is certainly a reason this account written by a gulag survivor and world renowned noble prize winning author has not been translated and available in English; because Solzhenityn crushes the myths of Jewish prosecution. That is to say and I am working on memory here; the Jews, like the very one in the video questioning Peterson on the Jewish role in the Holodomor and subsequent control of US media narratives, have long attested to hatred between Gentiles and Jews as arising because of Gentile reprisals for Jewish success. There were many pogroms against the Jews in Ukraine and Russia and all over Eastern Europe and only in the sense that Jewish success was largely based on exploitative practices fueled by their tribal ethnic hatred of the goyim could one make the case for resentment and jealousy. What happens is Jews say they were persecuted by illiterate peasants out of jealousy through no real faults of their own, this is the same line of specious argument that Peterson uses. 

 

You can see in this clip on the JRE that Peterson tries to sheepishly avoid the topic, by saying he might say the wrong thing. If that isn’t an indication of Voltaire’s dictum “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” I don’t know what is.

In the video when discussing the Hitler Question, the Jew Bret Weinstein preambles his position by asking JP, “If I’m cornered will you, (stuttering) come bail me out?” Peterson’s response is “No way man, the knives are coming out.” Weinstein’s ‘controversial’ opinion: “Hitler was a monster (OMG WHAT A REBEL!), as we all know, but he was a rational monster…” Weinstein goes on to say that when austerity hits a society because of loss of opportunity the society looks for some weaker group to blame for its ills. This kind of psychoanalyzing of mass psychology is the same as what I criticized in Peterson’s approach to individual psychology. The question is not raised why did austerity hit? Are there groups who are responsible? and who should be blamed? – that is the question of culpability of problems is not handled rather the symptoms seem to be the products of magical forces worthy of reprieve.

Onto Hitler; the Germans were an upstart nation and within their field of continental thought they had become giants, the new inheritors of the Greeks as Hegel would have put it. But also industrially and scientifically they had begun to displace and replace the British as the major economic power in the world. The theory that the Americans got involved in the war due to a ‘special relationship’ (a more integrated global usury system with leading branches in New York and London) with their one time parent nation, is also mitigated by many other historical factors. But the Balfour Declaration granting Lord Rothschild the two-centuries-longed-for-Jewish-homeland in Palestine surely tipped Jewish support totally in favor of the Anglo-Americans. The Dolchstoßlegende the stab in the back “myth” along with economic warfare perfected against Germany during the Second Moroccan Crisis (the Agadir Crisis) meant that the German nation could not count on even nationally grown Jewish favor and the credit lines to the war backers suddenly dried up.

 

Stab-in-the-back_postcard
Keep killing each other Goyim, my cousin Bleichroder financed the nation – WE OWN YOU

Now hardly anyone ever mentions any of these factors or looks at them critically, but everyone knows what happened next in the Treaty of Versailles (austerity). (Likewise the 2011 financial crisis just happened Goyim, no one’s to blame, ‘too big to fail’ we just happened to give foreign people our money and jobs while importing millions of them into our countries – that’s just the “market” and the “invisible hand,” no identifiable groups are pulling strings or stabbing backs – we’re all in this together – we are the world, kumbuya).

 

Now ask yourself did the German nation and people have multiple reasons for “disliking” Jews? (not merely the racial Darwinian one of muh blonde hair, muh blue eyes kin – and this is just the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head and the tip of my tongue). Or was it all according to Weinstein and Peterson; “Hitler was a monster and hard times make people look for scapegoats and they’re just jealous of Jewish success?” – massive psychobabble!

Back to Germany; while at the same time that the nation is brought to financial ruin largely by Jews, Jewish communists in Russia are slaughtering the White Russians, peasants and the Christian clerics and clergy, enforcing a genocide on Ukrainians and centralizing power to turn the nation into a bleak nihilistic dystopia. Making the native Russians obedient workers to a slave run materialist doctrine with Jews as the drivers. In Berlin the Jew Rosa Luxemberg and in Munich the Jew Eisner are fermenting the same Red takeover in Germany. But Hitler was a monster. 

This is not the sort of historical nuance you learn in school and my quest to discover the “Why?” ultimately makes one angry at being taught half-truths and distortions, but they say the winners write the history books. But for Weinstein “the opportunity has all been absorbed” as in “it just happened nobody benefited or orchestrated it goys.” The Treaty of Versailles and the harsh austerity doled out to Germany meant that the Allies were able to pay back their (((Money Lenders))) of which the Anglo-French Financial Commission had been arranged through Rothschild agent JP Morgan Jr. But according to Peterson his disagreement with Weinstein over the Hitler Question are not due to any of these historical facts that give the “Why?” meaning, no his “disagreement” is that “Hitler is even more evil than we thought he was.” That’s clinical psychology for you.

Apparently Adolf just didn’t want to clean his room. JP through did have one caveat for Old Uncle and did say he did wonders for the German economy (well that’s what happens when you nationalize the bank, print your own monetary notes backed by public trust in the government, control inflation and kick out the usurious Jews who undermine the nation for tribalist profit). But never mind the tribalism, the nepotism, the usury, the media lies, the manipulation of Gentile society to fit their ‘open society’ curriculum, the quest to degenerate and replace Europeans due to the two thousand years of tribal animus, and the murder of the God of universal love… You’re all just jelly. 

 

 

 

 

 

Jordan Peterson: Psychologists are really just Bad Sociologists

Jordan Peterson’s “solutions” are ultimately solipsistic and incredibly specious despite the word salads he brackets them in. That being said lunatic progressives make him look eminently “reasonable” (which I think is his whole socially conservative brand). 26904090_168521640542808_1647420769384827059_n

I do not much enjoy watching people like Jordan Peterson, I frankly and flat out do not find his perspective interesting or unique or especially insightful or intelligent. But despite my personal reservations Peterson has kind of become the Tony Robins of the Alt-Lite: the boomer parent, telling his kid to clean up his room, while his social habitat is being invaded by foreigners. Or rather the boomer parent talking about how great western values like free speech are and then supporting banning someone who gave that cherished right to marginal viewpoints from attending a free speech event. There is a solipsism present within Peterson and his advice to adopt personal responsibility which does come off like the boomer parent making a mess out of Western Civilization, squandering centuries of inheritable wealth and then telling his kids to “deal with it.” Peterson, champions free speech or speech without deceit, and “adoption of responsibility for the conditions of existence and some attempt on your part to rectify them,” – but would Peterson support someone that views the Jews as responsible for the conditions of existence and makes an attempt to rectify it? – no that would be an avoidance of “personal responsibility” and what clinical psychologists would call “scapegoating.” He is not concerned about your right to “speak your truth” or any of the empty platitudes he preaches, but is acting as an establishment stooge meant to divert your interest of the world wit large into your own petty problems.

Every so often I’ll catch a clip that will make me think I might be turning a corner with Peterson, a little bit; such as this one. There are a couple of things that struck me about the interview; firstly; his apparent sincerity. Secondly; that he knows young white men (he largely avoids the word “white,” but given that a male PoC is interviewing him and the language used “the West,” etc are euphemisms we know who they are talking about) are taking a ‘hit’ so to speak.

jtjlnlP.jpg

I may be more open to the kinds of empty pragmatic thinking that Peterson preaches, more than ever before, because I have usually been able to critique from a relatively stable position; but in recent months my more or less secure but low status demeaning job and support network has crumbled, I now find myself close to homeless, broke, hopeless, filled with anger, resentment, regret, bitterness and socially isolated and estranged. I feel these strains, which were always present, more acutely than ever before and I admit to myself and to you as a matter of full disclosure. But where Jordan Peterson seems in my opinion to be ‘wrong’ or less developed is in a sociological critique of our and my own predicament. For a clinical psychologist his primary concern is with the individual and for this reason alone he seems unwilling to conceive of collectivist modes of improvement or solutions to complex problems, despite the fact that he is discussing a particular demographic or group.

safe_imageThis failure of Peterson rests on an overemphasis on personal responsibility and ideological explanations, i.e. toxic feminism and post-colonial discourses and their psychological effects on individual white men subjected to them, and less on the structural changes to our societies – i.e. the importation of mass non-white immigration, the change from assimilation to multiculturalism, the globalization of the world market and the ascendancy of Other groups, internal forces that seek to weaken Western identity and resolve for personal tribalist gain and objectives, impersonal institutional structures spreading anomie and apathy etc. These sorts of things would enrich Peterson’s psychological approach to these issues, but they would make him a real persona non grata, instead of the controlled opposition he in fact represents. In effect he is dealing largely with symptoms instead of with the actual roots of problems. The ethics of boiling things down to “personal responsibility” betrays a larger understanding of the human being as a social and political animal. This is one of the reasons why Ezra Pound considered psychology to be bunk. Pound was concerned with societies, with civilizations, with economics, with races, he was not concerned with theories put forth about Nazism stemming from Adolf Hitler’s ‘single testicle complex’. This is why Pound largely considered psychology to be Jewish in nature; because it socially isolates the individual and treats him as an island to be dissected, obscuring the wider picture to deal with the individual neurosis – such “internal states” cannot ever be conceived comprehensively without the “external” macrocosm as in the feedback loop of the hermeneutic circle.

whole-parts.png
Hermeneutic Circle

Psychologists are really just bad sociologists, who focus on the parts instead of the whole, and that also makes them ideological liberals, who despise wholeness and “totalitarianisms” in favor of radical individualism and existential self-creationisms – they are philosophical nihilists who prefer pragmatic solutions to petty problems than full solutions to major ones. The nearly complete atomization (part of what I call Total Gesellschaft); this demanding and lecturing about “personal responsibility,” allows for collective responsibility, for community, to fall by the wayside. The refrain is always “never mind about them, what have you done?” This is the sneer of the selfish individualist whose only concern is to fill his belly – to stabilize himself. As an anecdotal expression of the sorts of cultural hegemony and psychological gesellschaft involved in such thinking take for example the film Limitless, in which the protagonist takes a drug that allows him to perform at optimal superhuman capabilities – does he change the world? No. Does he help his fellow man? No. He uses his gifts to maximize his self-interest becoming a Soros-like investor like his mentor. Peterson and those who champion the notion of individualism ultimately utilize a fundamental desire of the individual to attain personal mastery, to become a hero and while the egotism and the nobility of such yearning might be irrevocably intertwined Peterson has shown by his actions and philosophy a preference for the baser expression. While this type may give idle consideration to “ideas” his principle concern is the satisfaction he gets from personal gain, wheeling and dealing in “ideas” – not “truth” only attained in the gutter of realpolitik (Christ/Socrates). Peterson solutions are only slightly better than the  “Do something” that is the call of the nihilistic ignoramus, any activity is better than no activity; they despise real spiritual struggle, repose and contemplation or any activity for which there is not a demonstrable gain attached: Bleistein with a cigar. Peterson’s personal philosophy, his advice, does not go much further than that.

BWfLXEW

Authoritas Rising: Death of the Father – Birth of the Monster – Reign of the Undead

The Return of Authoritas at the Helm of Western Destiny

“No ‘enlightenment’ provides a purely rational, universal form. There is no such form.” – Michael Novak, Unmeltable Ethnics

“The bourgeois, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.”  – Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

The major pillar of ‘Western repression’ identified by the Left begins within the basic unit of society, the family, and extends as a corruption of human nature itself, which it centers on the free conscience of the individual – thus making the individual the basic unit of society.

safe_image.jpeg

This is especially problematic for the family, originally conceived as the basic unit of society, now viewed as an instrument or remnant of oppression. The Left’s attacks against patriarchal authority, have morphed the symbol and function of the Father, as something at the very center of the evil ‘authoritarian society’ to be overcome:

“the fundamental shift from the sociological to the psychological level that occurred during the 1940s was motivated by the fact that in Germany the proletariat had succumbed to fascism and in the Soviet Union socialism had not prevented the development of an authoritarian government that failed to guarantee individual autonomy or Jewish group interests. Within the new perspective authoritarianism was viewed as the fundamental problem, its origin traceable to family interactions and ultimately to the suppression of human nature.”

 

23915827_10159565312980099_390768001133489396_n.jpg

Even at its onset, the primordial cry of the child for the freedom of the birds – the cry for individual freedom was heard loudest from men who owed their learning and subsequent indignation to the very forms of authoritarian government that had nourished their genius, Immanuel Kant referred to the Enlightenment as “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage”, tutelage being “man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another”. Of course Kant’s ideas were the result of studiously leaning from the knowledge of other men. Perhaps those men who learn to be shepherds can lead a flock, but not all men become shepherds and philosophers or poet-visionaries, or ‘dreamers of the day,’ like the shepherd, are useless without a flock, just as flocks are aimless without shepherds. One need not look to Milgram-like experimentation to confirm that the majority of people everywhere are sheep. Whether in NAZI Germany or under Maoist communism or within Anglo-American liberal-capitalism, supraindividualist systems, modes of interaction, interrelated recursive systems of symbolic interaction mean that most people just want to get along to get by, most accept the rules of the game, adopting coping mechanisms, and top-down ideologies, accepting that life is unfair while attempting to make the most of it. Thus, the dictation of our current social order, which knowingly and self-deludedly expects shepherds, priests and philosophers of ordinary men and women of no considerable inclination towards such vocation – the ultimate lie of democracy and equality is in attributing noble virtues to the ignoble masses.

“The first great affirmation of modern liberalism: religious freedom.” such injunctions justified its historic attacks against the Church; ‘bless me Father,’ became a form of oppression. Protestantism had broken the sacredness of authority by bestowing priesthood on all believers, the social order that rested on the idea of the Holy Family became a source of exploitation, which have since morphed into attacks upon the social role of men generally, but the European “white male,” in particular. That the crisis of the West has been conceived in terms as a crisis of authority, is most relevant, liberalism like Protestantism is merely a revolt against the sacred principle of authoritas; “Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative–it means in fact, freedom from authority.” To base the society on the abstract principle of freedom necessarily entails always looking to extend the remit, from men, to women, to Negroes, to homosexuals, to transgenders, to animals, etc. The progressive tendency is never satisfied because freedom is limitless in its abstraction and run from authoritas. To base a society on Reason, as the Enlightenment attempted, was to dream ineffectual. The sleep of Reason, produces monsters.

 That Freud’s father figure had to be dislodged from the fall of 20th Century “totalitarianisms,” became a clarion call to dethrone the European man from atop the castle that he built, as Gertrude Stein once said of Hitler, Mussolini and Roosevelt; “There is too much fathering going on just now and there is no doubt about it fathers are depressing” (Blackner 1995). The father is ‘depressing’ because the father represents the Apollonian principle, a Nietzschean disciplined control of the unregulated Dionysian ego (Freud’s Id) through instilling social order – the father expects, the mother accepts.  

12800361_1690476841241949_740675926632074503_n
BIG DADDY

The empty shell of nationalism usurped by the merchant religiosity of economic and social liberalism. Insofar as the guillotine performs its democratic function, with globalized finance underwriting both government debt and the illusion of sovereignty. In attempting to give form to modern man (and woman), the private individual endowed with the right to pursue his own happiness, who is nevertheless under the distrustful surveillance of the national security state, one should recall the figure of the Acephalic employed by that theoretician of ‘sacred sociology,’ George Bataille. The Acephalic is the figure of man and the body politic of his democratic-liberal dispensation = headless, which is Bataille and Andre Masson’s symbolic representation of modern man, as a being “unaware of prohibition” moving beyond god and himself, “made of innocence and crime” holding life in one hand and death in another, losing himself in the labyrinth of his intestines, “in which I discover myself as him, in other words as a monster.” His appetites are his only responsibility, the politics of the ‘free’ individual. 

int1_300x371.jpg
Acephalic Society = Acephalic Man

Bataille’s Acephalic, apparently giving form to the Leftist variant of the Nietzschean ‘Ubermensch’… as “an attempted harnessing of an aggressive libidinal energy to combat the violent ascendancy of Fascism… The community must serve no master, no minister, no Fuhrer, it must be headless.”

 

It was at one point common to speak of the father as the ‘head of the family’ but under the assault of ‘freedom’ and ‘happiness’ only rarely is that possible. The ascension of Trump at least symbolically reinstates such a positionality, as the homosexual-nigger-dick-sucking-Jew-Milo affectionately calls Trump “daddy” it is in fact representational of the primordial need for strong men in leadership positions, to concretize form in the shape of authority to battle the chaos monsters that threaten to relativize the world into the primordial swamp of its birthing.

 

 

 

13888108157_1dbc693ff1_b-e1452790173898.jpg
Return of the King

How Blacks and PoC Ruin Everything

It has only recently come to my attention that back in June, Amber Hikes, the black female Executive Director, of the Office of LGBT Affairs at City of Philadelphia, thought it appropriate to add black and brown stripes to the gay pride flag. Having myself longstanding reservations over the appropriation of the Rainbow for the purposes of promoting sodomy and the degenerate ‘lifestyle choices’ inherent to gay identity welcome Hike’s new additions as adding a touch of realism. The inclusivity of the new stripes, promoting black and brown LGBTQwhatevers, are more representative of the acts and reality of queer-as-folk ‘lifestyle choices’ – black signifying death by AIDS, and brown signifying the leaky prolapsed assholes of the gay community, generally. What’s more these additions highlight how counter-aesthetic black and brown actual are.

prideflag-1024x576.jpg
Gay pride = all about black power

The sheer stupidity of the new additions are not lost on youtube commentators, who point out that the flag itself has nothing to do with race. This is of course symptomatic of how Blacks and PoC generally ruin everything.

pride-flag-meaning
This is obviously racist because it doesn’t have anything to do with race

That is because if something does not highlight them by focusing on race and their victimhood status, granting them special considerations, adulations and reparations the thing in question is deemed to be insensitive and racist and should be amended, revoked or abolished altogether. This ‘pride flag’ example highlights how Blacks hijack everything possible to put themselves at the fore, including other areas of Leftist progressive vanguardism whose ‘rainbow coalition‘ is presently or previously aligned, such as gay rights or women’s rights, and make it about ‘blacks and PoC gay rights’ or ‘blacks and PoC women’s rights,’ etc. Because through the metrics of ‘intersectionality‘ the academic code-word for ‘victimhood status points,’ blacks consider and are considered as the highest scoring representatives most deserved of special considerations, representation and privileges today. This ‘pride flag’ example highlights how what Blacks and other PoC truly want is to be foremost represented, to be sycophantically highlighted, until every last white person acknowledges what special snowflakes they are by licking their boots. The addition of the Black and Brown colours at the top of the flag rather than humbly placing them as new editions on the bottom can no doubt be read as another instance of the innate Black Supremacist tendency to privilege and place themselves as foremost deserving the spotlight and peoples consideration.

The hypocrisy and double-standard becomes apparent because they are imputing these racial signifiers into a flag that has no signifiers for Whites, which points to their future goal of either the eradication or exclusion of Whites from mention or consideration. Blacks complain that the Oscars are too white, while no one complains that the BET Awards are too black. What the politics of representation is really about is demographics and the struggle of races for survival, what Blacks and other PoC really want is to see themselves, or representations of themselves proliferate, which itself is about the proliferation of their genes and their race.

Ahmed Hussen AhmedDHussen Twitter
Canadian Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen – I wonder why he chose this photo for his Twitter? Me, me, me, me, me… oh I see…

Thus when the millionaire basketball-American Lebron James holds a press conference declaring, while millions of White Americans live in near abject poverty, that race is still the real issue affecting America (notice this t-shirt he’s wearing below from the press conference – oh another representation of himself), we can all applaud him for his courageousness.

 

 

Only when we acknowledge who are enemies are and what our predicament is can we overcome and reign supreme in the real world struggle between races, only when we take our own side the same way everyone else does. Because our culture is poisoned by an alien elite we are losing the representation struggle, and if we do not fight back we will lose the demographic struggle as well.

060917-sports-black-panther.jpg
We wuz kangs

 

The Citadel and The Swamp: A Study of East and West: Silence Film Review Part 3

“While some characters like Durand and Inoue employ the swamp to emphasize cultural incongruities of Christian moral teaching, Ferreira’s swamp bespeaks an intellectual dissonance between Christian and Japanese traditions of metaphysics.”[i]

”Contrary to the view, whether philosophical or religious, which ascribes to some moral rules an intrinsic autonomous value (a typical instance of this is the so-called “absolute morality” of Kant’s categorical imperative) the Buddha ascribed to the several attitudes of right conduct that he pointed out, a purely instrumental value, the value of means justified only in view of a certain aim and therefore only sub conditione. But this end, just as the higher grades of Buddhistic ascesis and contemplation, is beyond morality, nor can it be measured by the religious conception of ‘holiness.’ As Milarepa was to say: ‘In my youth I committed some black deeds, in my maturity some white ones; but now I have rejected all distinctions of black and white.’”[ii]

Your Own Personal Logos

Thus, “The idea of personality is, of course, very vague in the Orient, and especially is the oriental mind slow in thinking of the ultimate reality in terms of personality.”[iii] At once both parties (West and East) are affirming “same, same…” but in radically different ways, likewise in the metaphysics of the Logos.

“The idea of the logos as a unique incarnation in a historical personality is not altogether absent, but it differs rather sharply from the Christian conception in that the clean cut theistic background is wanting, and further in that the historical personality in which the logos is incarnate lacks the marks of reality. Hozo Biku, the incarnate logos of the Orient, has not a shred of historical reality about him. And herein lies the great superiority of Christianity over Buddhism: not simply in its system of a theistic philosophy, but in its flesh-and-blood reality of the incarnate Logos, the Jesus of the New Testament.”[iv]

This “flesh-and-blood” reality of the personal savior however effectively makes the Christian-Logos, qualitatively different from Buddhist interpretations and grants the Christ-Logos a uniquely dispositional approach towards the reconciliation of the transcendent and immanent views of God (and reality –hence broadening the Western mind to a nuanced metaphysical complexity). Christ as the vesica piscis encompasses both principles of human (material) and divine (transcendent) a perfectly balanced (venn diagram). The passion of Christ, the bloody violence of his ascension, the fanaticism of the blood of the martyrs all point towards a radical activism; with a worldly concerned liberationist core, a being-in-the-world-ness that perhaps even functions to undermine Christianity and bring about the rationalizing secularism of modernity, Buddhism at its core rejects such passions as merely self-indulgent illusionary sufferings. The Christian looks out at the world in pain seeking justice; the Buddhist looks within for peace; ultimately seeking transcendence – essentially Buddhism is world-denying and escapist ideology and Christianity though containing that element is ultimately activist and world-immersing. The prolonged existence of these core divergent logos and ontological-ideas has created different character-types. At worst the Christian pushes liberationist theology to the point of undermining Christian institutions and theology itself – leading also to the undermining of European particularity. This process was so gradual and prolonged in Europe, that the Japanese shogunate showed tremendous foresight in banishing the egalitarianizing doctrine in order to preserve their social positioning, as well as their culture. However, the prolonged rejection of the Christian Logos and the metaphysics of personal salvation and liberation by the East and its overextension in the West has indeed created character and system-types that could be labeled “Oriental despotism,” in opposition to the liberationist-individualism-Faustian-Prometheanism of the West – perhaps shortened to “Occidental humanism.” As countervailing opposites however they are unequal, the unique dynamism of the essence of the West, may well preside in the balancing of these two poles within its own structure, almost to the unnecessary existence of the East as merely a backwards recrudescence. That is to say that the West contains a layer of “Oriental despotism,” and inward contemplation, but the Orient does not contain a layer of Occidental humanism or liberationist activism. If the postmodern imposition of human rights is counted it is only a mutated post-modern form of Occidental humanism that is itself morphing into its opposite – being dragged down into the swamp. The West is large spiritually, it contains multitudes, the East is large geographically, and it contains similitudes. That is to say that even the inwardness of Christian monastic, meditative and spiritual life has a radically different and personal dimension than the Eastern variants, “that sense of ‘inwardness’ which has already been defined as an important element in individuality,”[v] such that the Christian “spirit of world-rejection coexisted with a positive affirmation of individual and humane values,”[vi] that was lacking in the East. Furthermore the gold of its perfection is qualitatively reflective of this difference, in so far as the love of Christianity is not the same as the compassion of Buddhism, Christianity’s love is Agape, through which Zizek identifies a revolutionary potentiality, “the all-encompassing compassion of Buddhism (or Hinduism, for that matter) has to be opposed by Christianity’s intolerant, violent love.”[vii]

Furthermore, the Japanese and Eastern rejection of the truth claims of Christianity entails a rejection of the notions of justice, truth, beauty and the form of the good – as transcendental “objective” principles. The dialogues between the interpreter and Ft. Rodrigues and those between the Inquisitor and Ft. Rodrigues illuminate this denial of the objective and the affirmation of the subjective, culturally specific, particularism:

THE INQUISITOR (Inoue Sama)

Father, the doctrine you bring with you may be true in Spain and Portugal. But we have studied it carefully…thought about it over much time…and find it’s of no use and no value in Japan. We have concluded that it is a danger.

RODRIGUES

But we believe we brought you the truth, and the truth is universal.

It’s common to all countries at all times, that’s why we call it the truth. If a doctrine weren’t as true in Japan as it is in Portugal, we couldn’t call it the truth.

THE INQUISITOR (Inoue Sama)

“I see you do not work with your hands, Father. But everyone knows a tree which flourishes in one kind of earth may decay and die in another. It is the same with the tree of Christianity. The leaves decay here. The buds die.”

RODRIGUES

(heated)

It is not the soil that has killed the buds. There were three hundred thousand Christians in Japan before the soil was…

THE INQUISITOR (Inoue Sama)

Yes?

RODRIGUES

Poisoned.

It is clear from conversations with Fr Ferriera that the poisoning of the Christian doctrine by the authorities was not necessary since the Japanese Burakumin who were converted to the faith understood Christ to be a manifestation of the material sun rather than the mystery of incarnation. Nietzsche’s shrewd insight saw into the heart of Buddhism as “passive nihilism” – “the weary nihilism that no longer attacks… passive nihilism, weakness,”[viii] that which sustains an immoral social order. Nietzsche was beyond prescient when he ascribed to this form of nihilism that was enrapturing the European soul as a “new Buddhism,” presenting “‘the greatest danger.-How are truthfulness, love, and justice related to the actual world?’ Not at all!-”[ix] Nietzsche then saw the ushering in of the postmodern world as one imbued with Buddhist values, in which objective values no longer determine the social order, which like individual personality, is driven by sheer contingencies subservient to power relations. In this gross materialism of sameness, in which individuality is reduced to a hierarchicalization of functionary status, “Oriental despotism” assumes its place as the pragmatic component in an arbitrary social order based primarily on cohesion, violence and the senseless but ritualized routinization of the procedures of worship and administration – Western nihilism. The West had entered a stage analogous to the East philosophically and onto-theologically, but it did so through a Hellenization of Judaism. philosophically, the East never attained towards the “metaxological” balance of Aristotelian (Marxist historical-materialism) and Platonic (Hegelian-teleological) notions of what I will term ‘investigative transcentalism’ that defined Christianity – but remains as in Hegel’s reading of Oriental religions; stuck in the quagmire of the ‘emergent sphere of the spirit.’ The East, especially the far-East, also lacks ‘thumos’ or spiritedness above all, which results in an underdeveloped sense of self. As Zizek puts it:

“Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces. […] This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; what for the Buddhist (or Theosophist) personality is the fall of man, for the Christian is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists [or Buddhist] asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine center of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. […] All modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into different living souls.”

Indeed, only Christianity ascends to the tripartite functions of interrelation and dialectic, which contains the seeds for an advanced metaphysical structure (investigative transcentalism) that encompasses all others:

Father – Grammar – Mind – Reason – objective – Logos – Nous – Yahweh

Son – Logic –Heart – Emotion – subjective – Pathos – Thumos – Christ

Holy Spirit – Rhetoric – Hands – Action – communal – EthosEpithumia – Allah

At this point a distinction between the Logos of the Greeks and the Logos of the Christians should be explored to pontificate upon their divergences and similarities. If as “In Voltaire’s theory of Western culture neither the Jews nor Biblical history nor even Christianity is ‘central.’ Rather the normative culture of the West had been disseminated by classical Greece and Rome, which are Europe’s authentic foundations, and whose Golden Age of paganism the Enlightenment would restore,” one could assume a distinct Logos of Hellenic conception as opposed to the Christian. Ezra Pound for his measure was overtly attracted to Confucianism akin to the Japanese feudalism witnessed in Silence. However, rather than Christ coming to fulfill the messianic covenant of the Torah, a position which Jews reject, Christ from a Hellenic perspective could also be said to have bastardized, rather than fulfill, the Logos of Greek metaphysics. It is a matter requiring exploration, beyond the scope of this review that I suggest that the Greeks were moving towards compatible truths with the Christian revelation, which because of it’s Oriental-Jewish elements caused a sort of disfigurement.

In each movement of Logos (both Hellenic and Christian) unanswerable questions are regulated to “Mystery” or “Myth” – designated by Plato in The Republic as “the noble lie.” If the story of Christ is compatible with such a social utility then the Myth of Er corresponds to the election of salvation and the promise of the afterlife in Christian theology as well. For the Greeks alone one could discuss the Logos of Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Plato, Philo, Plotinus or the Stoics – the noetic or spermatic Logos, or the Logoi. The Greeks could not agree beyond a kind of metaphysics of reason at times interacting within the world through form and manifestation and at times wholly Other. Less still could one conceive of a pure Logos-Idea between civilizational forms; and one can speak of the Hebrew, the Persian, Greco-Jewish logos of Philo, the Christian, and even the Oriental conceptual theories of the Logos-Idea. Thus, “We realize of course that there is no such thing as a definite logos-doctrine, or rather that it was held under various forms.”[x] Such a nebulous idea could be molded to any platform.[xi] However, “There was perhaps no passage of Scripture which caused the translators of the Bible into Japanese so much trouble as the opening verses of the Gospel according to John. The controversy was not over the meaning of the Logos, but rather over the oriental equivalent and word to be chosen as the best translation… In the Chinese version Logos had been translated by the word T’ao…” The Japanese translate logos by the Japanese term for ‘word,’ kotoba. Within this loose schema, Reischauer wrongfully concludes “Thus the oriental mind is not at all unprepared to understand the logos-doctrine of Christianity, or any form of it,” forgetting that the Orientals lacked Hellenic roots although, Reischauer adds the caveat of the superiority of the Logos-Doctrine of Christianity to its oriental manifestations.

littleton-christian-logo

[i] John T. From Cultural Alterity to the Habitations of Grace: The Evolving Moral Topography of Endo’s Mudswamp Trope Netland Christianity & Literature Vol 59, Issue 1, pp. 27 – 48 First Published December 1, 2009.

[ii] https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/06/spiritual-virility-in-buddhism/

[iii] Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251.

[iv] Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142108.

[v] Morris, Colin. The discovery of the individual, 1050-1200. Toronto: University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1987. Print. 32.

[vi] Morris, Colin. The discovery of the individual, 1050-1200. Toronto: University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1987. Print. 29.

[vii] Žižek, Slavoj. Living in the end times. London New York: Verso, 2011. Print. 99.

[viii] Nietzsche, Friedrich W., Walter Kaufmann, and R. J. Hollingdale. The will to power. New York: Random House, 1967. Print. 18

[ix] Nietzsche, Friedrich W., Walter Kaufmann, and R. J. Hollingdale. The will to power. New York: Random House, 1967. Print.

[x] Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251.

[xi] A summary simplification of the strains of the Logos-Idea – In general… the logos doctrine stands for theory that there is a rational principle in things. 1. Regarded as ultimate and absolute principle, superior to all other principles (Greek – Stoic). 2. Regarded as one of two principles i.e., co-ordinate with another and opposing principle (Persian Dualism though early Greek philosophy has tendency and Philo himself is not free from it). 3. Regarded as subordinate principle, subject to higher and more ultimate reality. (Hebraic thought, in which logos-principle subordinated to ultimate reality, God). Reischauer, A. K. “Japanese Buddhism and the Doctrine of the Logos.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 4, 1913, pp. 245–251.